 |
|
 CamelotDiscuss about Camelot game or find new opponents. 您未权限在该板张贴消息。只有最低脑兵级别的会员才允许张贴在该板。 状态: 所有人能发表
<< < 1 2 3 > >> 2. 六月 2009, 21:59:47 题目: Moving knights out of enemy castles I was just looking at a game of mine where I have a knight in my opponent's castle. I was under the impression that once you move into your opponent's castle, you can never move out, but in this case BrainKing will let me move out. I need to capture on this turn, and I can either capture one piece with a pawn, or two pieces by making a knight's chage out of the castle. Is this a bug, or is it legal? Game is here: Camelot (Ceiter vs. tenuki) I'm not moving until I know the move is legit. 27. 五月 2009, 07:23:02 题目: Exhibition Games 被MrWCF修改(27. 五月 2009, 17:09:38) Within the next week or so, I will be playing a few exhibition games of Camelot against CHAXX, the World Champion Camelot computer program, on this site ( Camelot (Chaxx vs. MrWCF) ). I suspect that my current unbeaten BrainKing Camelot record will quickly suffer extensive damage. 21. 二月 2009, 23:36:14 题目: Chivalry hello, What about the variant Chivalry? I would be very happy we can play it here too. 14. 二月 2009, 23:45:34 题目: Re: Camette joshi tm: "Ultra-weak" means it's known what the result of the game will be (or cannot be) given perfect play by both players. PahTum for instance is ultra-weak solved in the sense that the second player cannot win (strategy stealing argument). But for a game to be solved ultra-weakly, you can prove the result, but you do not have to have a method reaching that result. Weakly solved means that you have a method for one player to force a win (or draw) from the starting position. Strongly solved means that you from any position what the result will be, and how to archieve that result with perfect play from both sides. Chess is partially strongly solved for up to 6 or 7 pieces (that is, for any legal chess position with at most 6 (or 7) pieces, optimal play for both sides is known) 14. 二月 2009, 22:54:46 题目: Re: Camette 被joshi tm修改(14. 二月 2009, 22:56:40) MrWCF: I read about the checkers game indeed it was weakly solved. I study maths, pity I did not learn anything about interesting Game Theories. What does the solving levels mean? By what perfect play, the games always draw? Edit: I see the game board has lots more sides, piece connot be captured that easy. Interesting... 14. 二月 2009, 19:51:26 题目: Re: Camette joshi tm: Camette has not been solved at any of the three possible levels (ultra-weak, weak, or strong). However, in order for that to be true, White must choose one of the 10 opening moves (out of a possible 24) that do not result in forced loss. Speaking of Checkers and Chess, by the way, as you may know, Checkers was weakly solved in 2007: it's a draw. 14. 二月 2009, 13:43:07 题目: Re: Camette MrWCF: Is it a solved game then? Or is it a "not so easily solved game" just like Checkers and Chess? 14. 二月 2009, 12:21:10 题目: Camette joshi tm:Thanks for your comments, joshi. When I invented the Camelot variant of Camette, I never seriously expected it to avoid being "solved" for too long a period of time. It appears, though, that 10 of the 22 possible first moves for White actually result in an equal battle--I was pleasently surprised! 14. 二月 2009, 11:16:51 I like Camelot. Although you have to be alert, for else a foul move often counts as 7 captured pieces. I think this hyper Camelot version should be added too ;) http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Camette_Rules.htm 22. 一月 2009, 08:06:46 题目: A Challenging Game, Annotated 被MrWCF修改(22. 一月 2009, 08:32:27) I thought that I would annotate my game just completed against skinny18. It was the most difficult Camelot game I've had so far on BrainKing. Camelot (MrWCF vs. skinny18) White: MrWCF 17. 一月 2009, 14:45:09 Thanks. That saves 6 pieces because I thougt it was otherwise. 17. 一月 2009, 07:16:08 题目: Re: joshi tm: Yes. If one of your pieces is in position to Jump one of your opponent's pieces, you must make a capture sometime during that move. You can accomplish that mandatory capture either by the Jump, itself, or, if one is available, by a Knight's Charge. 17. 一月 2009, 06:34:22 If you have to capture with pawns, are you allowed to make a knight's charge instead? 15. 一月 2009, 13:01:00 题目: Re: World Camelot Federation  MrWCF: Thank you for your response. I was thinking that a "world federation" should associate individual national associations and was wondering if there are any throughout the world. I guess that's not the case. Thanks again for making it clear. 15. 一月 2009, 07:37:11 题目: Re: World Camelot Federation 被MrWCF修改(15. 一月 2009, 08:24:57) Pedro Martínez: Thanks for your questions, Pedro. The WCF uses the word “Federation” as a synonym for “association” or “league.” Ten years ago, when I formed the WCF, I could just as easily have chosen “World Camelot Association.” The WCF uses the word “World” because the organization is open for free to anyone anywhere in the world. Currently, the WCF has members in twelve different countries. If I can ever manage to publicize the group, my preference would be to have at least one member in every country in the world. 15. 一月 2009, 06:48:16 题目: World Camelot Federation I have just visited the website of the "World Camelot Federation" and two questions came into my mind: What makes the WCF a "world" federation and what makes it a "federation"? 15. 一月 2009, 06:40:35 题目: Camelot World Championship Match The WCF Camelot World Championship Match will begin at 10:00 a.m. EST on February 7, 2009, in Troy, Michigan, USA. The best-four-out-of-seven contest will pit the challenger, Michael Nolan, against the current world champion, Dan Troyka. This will be the first over-the-board Camelot World Championship contest in history. The time limit will be 40 moves in 150 minutes. Mr. Troyka has been Camelot world champion since 2003. Mr. Nolan won a series of Candidates Elimination Matches under the auspices of the World Camelot Federation to earn the right to be the challenger. 14. 一月 2009, 17:10:23 题目: Re: An Interesting Cam Ending AbigailII: Thank you, I'll do that in future messages, and I'll edit the two previous messages. I appreciate your help! 14. 一月 2009, 11:32:12 题目: Re: An Interesting Cam Ending MrWCF: You might get more response if you make your references to games actual links. 14. 一月 2009, 08:47:29 题目: An Interesting Cam Ending 被MrWCF修改(14. 一月 2009, 17:13:57) Another interesting position, this time at the end of the Cam game between PerGioco and dragonchild (archive #3685011: Cam (dragonchild vs. PerGioco)). The players agreed to a draw. I believe that no Cam position is drawn--one player can always force a win--but that is unproven. Do you think that this game is a draw, or a win for Black? I would like to hear your intended strategy as Black to try for the win. 11. 一月 2009, 08:52:12 题目: Annotated Game And finally, this game from the 2002-2003 Camelot World Championship Tournament M. Nolan vs. P. Yearout 11. 一月 2009, 08:50:46 题目: Annotated Game And still another.... Paul Yearout vs. Michael Nolan 1999 11. 一月 2009, 08:49:41 题目: Annotated Game And another... Dave Blizzard vs. Michael Nolan 1999 11. 一月 2009, 08:48:38 题目: Annotated Game And another... Michael Nolan vs. Dave Blizzard 1999 11. 一月 2009, 08:47:37 题目: Annotated Game Here's another annotated Camelot game. Michael Nolan vs. Dave Blizzard 1999 11. 一月 2009, 08:46:12 题目: Annotated Game Here is an annotated game for inspection. Paul Yearout vs. Michael Nolan 2001 11. 一月 2009, 01:20:00 题目: Re: 2008-2009 WCF Camelot World Championship Tournament  Fencer: That would be great! I feel like I am stumbling around at this game, and would love to read about strategy. I've been too busy to take a look at some of the better players' games so far. 10. 一月 2009, 20:50:16 题目: Re: 2008-2009 WCF Camelot World Championship Tournament Fencer: That sounds great! 10. 一月 2009, 20:11:02 题目: Re: 2008-2009 WCF Camelot World Championship Tournament  MrWCF: That's great.  It would be nice to see some annotated games when the championship is complete. I would like to post some articles about Camelot strategy.9. 一月 2009, 15:34:56 Is it possible to finish knight's charge on same field where it started? 9. 一月 2009, 15:08:06 题目: 2008-2009 WCF Camelot World Championship Tournament Just in case anyone is interested........ MrWCF (Michael Nolan) just won the Candidates Match portion of the subject tournament, so will challenge Dan Troyka of Saline, Michigan, USA, the current World Champion, for the Camelot World Championship. It is my hope that during the next World Championship Tournament, many players from BrainKing submit entries. 9. 一月 2009, 00:15:01 题目: Re: Camelot Ending Pedro Martínez: Can you outline your general plan to win as Black? 9. 一月 2009, 00:11:27 题目: Re: Camelot Ending MrWCF: I believe I would win the game as Black.  8. 一月 2009, 11:39:14 题目: Camelot Ending 被MrWCF修改(14. 一月 2009, 17:16:46) Interesting position at the end of the Camelot game between chessik and SL-Bosse (archive #3599761: Camelot (chessik vs. SL-Bosse)). The players agreed to a draw. Do you think it's a draw? Or do you think it's a win for black? I'm pretty confident that I know the answer, but I would like to hear some opinions. 8. 一月 2009, 10:45:14 题目: Re: Resignation DarwinKoala: You know, I think that's probably much more true for a game like chess than for a game like Camelot. In chess, for instance, much is to be learned from playing out a rook + 4 pawns vs. rook + 3 pawns ending, even if it's a clear win for the other player. In Camelot, though, nothing much can be learned from a position where, for instance, two pieces have a clear path to the opposing Castle. In cases like that, it's just a matter of tediously playing out all of the moves. 8. 一月 2009, 07:47:48 题目: Re: Resignation But sometimes the losing player wants to practice or understand an end game. Of course, there is always horses for courses. Cheers, DK. 8. 一月 2009, 06:44:23 题目: Re: Resignation AbigailII: In tournament chess, one method for punishing an opposing player who refused to resign was as follows..... You have a king, rook, bishop, and four pawns. Your opponent has only a king. He won't resign. Instead of mating with rook and king, you push all four pawns to promotion (queens). Now you have four queens, rook, and bishop, and a crowd starts to gather around your table, all snickering about why he hasn't resigned. Pretty cruel, I suppose, but it sure taught a tough lesson really fast. 8. 一月 2009, 03:17:53 题目: Re: Resignation MrWCF: Oh yes, I've noticed it as well. It annoys me too. I've even been yelled at for resigning with the argument my opponent didn't get the satisfaction of "moving out the last stones". But there are other sites where it's worse. There's one site I play where resigning is actually punished (you get extra negative 'tie breaker points' making it harder to win a tournament if another player scored the same amount of match points). As for your point 3), I've heard that often. I don't buy it. Little skill is needed to play out a position where the situation of the opponent is hopeless. No tactical or strategical action will happen that will be useful to the losing player. If the losing player wants to learn something, he'd be better off starting a new game instead of continuing a game that's lobsided. 8. 一月 2009, 00:45:28 题目: Resignation 被MrWCF修改(8. 一月 2009, 00:51:08) I would like to discuss something that appears to be commonplace behavior on BrainKing. Let me preface my remarks by admitting that I've only been playing on this site for a short time, and then, almost exclusively Camelot, so perhaps my observations are only a holiday phenomenon, or perhaps they don't apply to other games. Anyway, it is my impression that it is the norm here to continue playing the game, even when the outcome is obvious, and the cause is hopeless. Resignation in that case seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Let me be the first to point out a couple of things: 1.No player is forced to resign; obviously, each player has the absolute right to continue playing to the bitter end. 2.There are positions where a player seems to be hopelessly behind in material, yet has traps, tricks, attacks, or some other means of pulling a win or a draw from the jaws of defeat. 3.There is some benefit in continuing to play, and in so doing, learning from the technique displayed by the opponent as he or she moves on to victory. That said, my background for over 40 years has been tournament (over-the-board) chess where if you are playing against a player much higher rated than yourself, and your position is hopeless with absolutely no chance to even draw the game, you resign. I was just wondering if others have noticed this reluctance to resign in lost positions. Again, I'm not complaining--it's every player's right to continue the fight! 4. 一月 2009, 11:23:35 题目: Re: Cam Fencer: I've added a list of differences between Cam and Camelot on the WCF website's Cam page (http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Cam.htm), and a link to those differences on the Cam Rules page (http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Cam_Rules.htm). The differences between Cam and Camelot are: 1. The Cam board has 67 squares. The Camelot board has 160 squares. 2. Each side in Cam has two Knights and five Men. Each side in Camelot has four Knights and ten Men. 3. The object of Cam is to get one piece into the opponent's Castle. The object of Camelot is to get two pieces into the opponent's Castle. 4. Victory in Cam also occurs if one side, even with only one remaining piece, captures all of the opposing pieces. In Camelot, if the side capturing all of the opposing pieces has only one remaining piece, the game is a draw. (Victory in Camelot by capture of all of the opposing pieces only occurs if the victorious side has two or more remaining pieces.) 5. Stalemate in Cam is impossible. Stalemate in Camelot is possible, and is a victory for the stalemating side if it has two or more pieces. 6. In Cam, if both sides have only one remaining piece, the game continues until one piece captures the other, or one piece enters the opposing Castle. In Camelot, if both sides have only one remaining piece, the game is a draw. 4. 一月 2009, 09:45:38 题目: Re: Cam Fencer: That's a good idea. In addition to the official rules, I could add some sort of addendum that points out the differences. Thanks. 4. 一月 2009, 09:20:58 题目: Re: Cam MrWCF: It is done. But it might be better if the WCF page shows just the difference between Camelot and Cam because it is not easy to find it comparing both full length rules. 4. 一月 2009, 08:20:43 题目: Cam Fencer: AbigailII has reported that a Cam position where each side had one piece was declared a draw. I haven't inspected the position in question, but just in case, one vs. one is not a draw in Cam; in fact, it is always a win for one of the players, depending upon who has the opposition. 4. 一月 2009, 08:11:36 题目: Re: 1-1 in Cam AbigailII: It is not a draw. See the World Camelot Federation Official Rules of Cam: http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Cam_Rules.htm I'll notify Fencer of this. 3. 一月 2009, 09:46:16 题目: 1-1 in Cam I was quite surprised that in Cam, a position with both players having one piece left was declared a draw. Unlike Camelot where you need to occupy your opponents castle with two pieces, in Cam, only one is needed for a win. With both players having one piece left (and the pieces had passed each other), it would have made much sense if the game continued. 31. 十二月 2008, 07:18:51 题目: Re: Did I lose this game? 被MrWCF修改(31. 十二月 2008, 07:31:12) DarwinKoala: If I might be forgiven for discussing some Camelot history.... You had a valid historical reason for wondering if being reduced to one piece constitutes a loss. The current (World Camelot Federation) rule that governs, though, is: The game is won if a player captures all of his opponent's pieces, and has two or more of his own pieces left. This rule clarifies the question of whether two or more vs. one is a win. It is not a win; its outcome, possibly a draw, is yet to be determined. In the 1930 rules, and in the initial editions of the 1931 rules, a win by elimination required the elimination of all of the opponent’s pieces. In later 1931 editions, however, the wording was changed to “elimination of all, or all but one, of the opponent’s pieces.” This change in wording resulted from the fact that it is not possible for one piece to stop another (opposing) piece from entering its Castle. Thus, if one side has two pieces and the other side one piece, it is impossible (with normal play) for the one to stop the two, even if the stronger side already has one of its pieces in the opponent’s Castle, and even if the weaker side temporarily has the opposition (a position where the pieces are on the same rank, file, or diagonal with an odd number of squares separating them, and the stronger side must move, thereby allowing the weaker side to stop the advance of the stronger side’s piece). This change in wording, however, not only failed to take into account possible misplays by the stronger side; much more importantly, it failed to take into account situations where the weaker side could initiate a combination (a series of forced moves that leads to a significant change in positional or material advantage) that would, although reducing itself to one piece, reduce the stronger opposing side to one piece or no pieces, thus securing a draw. So, when you're reduced to one piece you haven't lost yet. Hope this helps! 31. 十二月 2008, 05:11:54 题目: Re: Did I lose this game? DarwinKoala: No, it's not feasible to force a draw from your position. It would be possible to draw the game only if your opponent underwent a lobotomy or something, but you can't FORCE a draw. :) As I said in my previous post, I believe you will lose the game in two moves. :) 31. 十二月 2008, 04:59:31 题目: Re: Did I lose this game? Pedro Martínez: I did go back and read the rules ... For some reason I had thought that the game was lost when I was reduced to a single piece, not when all were removed from the board! As a matter of interest - is it feasible to force a draw from this position? Cheers, DK 31. 十二月 2008, 04:54:54 题目: Re: Did I lose this game? DarwinKoala: Read the rules. You will probably lose the game in two moves. << < 1 2 3 > >> |
日期和时间
在线的朋友
最喜欢的讨论板
朋友群
每日提示
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, 版权所有 回顶端 |