The Rules Of Entropy
Augustine Carreno
Introducing: e-mail ENTROPY
The board has 25 squares, or spaces, arranged in a 5 x 5 grid,
represented here as,
S S S S S
S . . . S
. . . . .
O . . . O
O O O O O
Fig. 1 Starting Position
where S, O represent two sets of pieces of different colors,
seven to each player. The dots are empty squares.
--> RULES:
1. A piece can move only if it is next (incl. diagonally) to one
of its own color. When this is satisfied, you may move it any
number of empty squares, in a straight line, and in any one direction.
2. If you have a piece that is next to neither one of its own,
nor one of the other color, then you are in check, and can play to
clear the check only. If it can't be done, you must pass.
3. The objective is to disperse your pieces so that each one
ends up next to pieces of the other color only, not their own.
------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLES:
S . O . S S . O . O
O . . . O O . S O S
O S S O S S . . . .
S . . . . O O S S O
. . O O S S . . . .
Fig 2. The O side is in check Fig. 3. What's O's best move?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the algebraic notation (Top row = 5; Left col.= a):
In the example in Fig.2, the O side is in check, since the piece
at c5 is isolated. One possible solution is for O to play a4-c4,
clearing the check and creating one for S at the same time.
Fig.3 shows S threatening to win with d2-e1. O can preempt this
with b2-b4, which denies the piece at c2 its connection.
NOTES:
By convention, the O's play first. The easiest way to start a
gane is to just copy Fig.1 into your editor and proceed from there.
"In check", as described in rule 2., applies only when you
take your turn. This means you can put yourself in check in one
turn, and then clear out of it in the next.
Copyright [C] 1994 Augustine R. Carreno
All rights reserved.
--
Augustine R. Carreno | Sp. Check: "Shoe" not in Dictionary.
acar...@hookup.net | Drop the other now? (y/n):
Physicist at large
Armtone Devices
Kevin Whyte
: Very interesting game, Augustine.
: ------------------------------------------------------------------
: The board has 25 squares, or spaces, arranged in a 5 x 5 grid,
: represented here as,
: S S S S S
:
: S . . . S
: . . . . .
: O . . . O
: O O O O O
: Fig. 1 Starting Position
:
: --> RULES:
: 1. A piece can move only if it is next (incl. diagonally) to one
: of its own color. When this is satisfied, you may move it any
: number of empty squares, in a straight line, and in any one direction.
: 2. If you have a piece that is next to neither one of its own,
: nor one of the other color, then you are in check, and can play to
: clear the check only. If it can't be done, you must pass.
: 3. The objective is to disperse your pieces so that each one
: ends up next to pieces of the other color only, not their own.
: ------------------------------------------------------------------
: May I suggest, however, some slight tidying up of the wording. The use of the
: "check" concept is unnecessary, and may be confusing. It could be thus...
: 1. A piece that is (diagonally or orthogonally) adjacent to one
: of its own color may move any number of empty squares in a straight
: line in one direction.
: 2. If at the start of your turn you have a piece that is adjacent to no
: pieces of either color, then any play must leave a situation where
: you have no such piece. If this can't be done, you must pass.
: 3. The winner is the first player who gets all his pieces adjacent to
: at least one of the opponent's and none of his own.
I'm not so sure this is the same game. My interpretation of the
original "check" rule would read something like:
2. If at the start of your turn you have a piece that is adjacent
to no pieces of either color, then any play must leave that piece adjacent
to some piece. If this can't be done, the player must pass.
The difference being a situation where you have an isolated piece
and a move which fixes that but isolates another (previously unisolated)
piece. Perhaps a better way to state the rule is:
2. It is illegal to leave any particular piece isolated for
two turn in a row. If this cannot be avoided you must pass.
An obvious variant is that you just lose when this happens.
: However, neither these nor the original rules are complete, in that these
: situations are not made clear....
: (a) if a player has a legal move, is it compulsory to move, or may they pass?
I would tent to think yes, but I have no strong aethetic pull either
way. Whichever leads to a more interesting game.
: (b) if a situation is achieved where BOTH players have a winning position as
: in rule 3, who is the winner, or is it a draw, or does play continue?
I think this is likely to be common. So it should probably be a win
for the last player to move.
: (c) if a situation is achieved where both players get an isolated piece as in
: rule 2, then neither may legally move again! Is this to be a draw?
Here I feel very strongly it should be a draw. I don't think this will
be easy enough to achieve to destroy the game ... it might even add to it
(ala perpetual check).
: If you have not decided on these matters yet; may I earnestly suggest that
: (b) is made so that the player who just moved is the winner; and that (c) is
: forbidden by making it illegal to form bi-isolated positions. As to (a) I have
: no special preference one way or the other.
: It looks like a fun game! I like the "isolated piece" rule. Can't wait to
: try an email game with someone, once these ambiguities are cleared up.
Ok, go first.
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Bill Taylor w...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Whyte
kwh...@math.upenn.edu
Mel Nicholson
Kevin Whyte <kwh...@thales.math.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Bill Taylor (w...@math.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
>
>: 2. If you have a piece that is next to neither one of its own,
>: nor one of the other color, then you are in check, and can play to
>: clear the check only. If it can't be done, you must pass.
>
>: pieces of either color, then any play must leave a situation where
>: you have no such piece. If this can't be done, you must pass.
>
>to no pieces of either color, then any play must leave that piece adjacent
>to some piece. If this can't be done, the player must pass.
I think that the second wording is not the same as the other tow,
and that the third is the clearest of the lot.
Perhaps the following will be clearer:
2. If one or more of your pawns are not adjacent to any other pawns (including
each other), then you must move a pwns to a spot adjacent to all such pawns
if possible, or pass if not.
2b. If you have a legal move you must make a legal move.
>: (a) if a player has a legal move, is it compulsory to move, or may they pass?
I suspect that making legal movement mandatory is the better option, as the
"never move" strategy could be used to force a draw from a large number of
situations, including the first non-move.
>: (b) if a situation is achieved where BOTH players have a winning position as
>: in rule 3, who is the winner, or is it a draw, or does play continue?
>
> I think this is likely to be common. So it should probably be a win
>for the last player to move.
>
Agreed.
>: (c) if a situation is achieved where both players get an isolated piece as in
>: rule 2, then neither may legally move again! Is this to be a draw?
>
> Here I feel very strongly it should be a draw. I don't think this will
>be easy enough to achieve to destroy the game ... it might even add to it
>(ala perpetual check).
>
I like the idea of reducing draws in any game, but I think
that a player whose opponent has an unclearable check can force a draw
without making his own unclearable check, so this rule looks too complicated
for such a simple game.
Mel
Bill Taylor
------------------------------------------------------------------
The board has 25 squares, or spaces, arranged in a 5 x 5 grid,
represented here as,
S S S S S
S . . . S
. . . . .
O . . . O
O O O O O
Fig. 1 Starting Position
--> RULES:
1. A piece can move only if it is next (incl. diagonally) to one
of its own color. When this is satisfied, you may move it any
number of empty squares, in a straight line, and in any one direction.
2. If you have a piece that is next to neither one of its own,
nor one of the other color, then you are in check, and can play to
clear the check only. If it can't be done, you must pass.
3. The objective is to disperse your pieces so that each one
ends up next to pieces of the other color only, not their own.
------------------------------------------------------------------
May I suggest, however, some slight tidying up of the wording. The use of the
"check" concept is unnecessary, and may be confusing. It could be thus...
1. A piece that is (diagonally or orthogonally) adjacent to one
of its own color may move any number of empty squares in a straight
line in one direction.
2. If at the start of your turn you have a piece that is adjacent to no
pieces of either color, then any play must leave a situation where
you have no such piece. If this can't be done, you must pass.
3. The winner is the first player who gets all his pieces adjacent to
at least one of the opponent's and none of his own.
However, neither these nor the original rules are complete, in that these
situations are not made clear....
(a) if a player has a legal move, is it compulsory to move, or may they pass?
(b) if a situation is achieved where BOTH players have a winning position as
in rule 3, who is the winner, or is it a draw, or does play continue?
(c) if a situation is achieved where both players get an isolated piece as in
rule 2, then neither may legally move again! Is this to be a draw?
If you have not decided on these matters yet; may I earnestly suggest that
(b) is made so that the player who just moved is the winner; and that (c) is
forbidden by making it illegal to form bi-isolated positions. As to (a) I have
no special preference one way or the other.
It looks like a fun game! I like the "isolated piece" rule. Can't wait to
try an email game with someone, once these ambiguities are cleared up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor w...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three things you lose as you get older,
first your memory, then... ah ... um ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------