用户名: 密码:
新用户注册
监管者: MrWCF 
 Camelot

Discuss about Camelot game or find new opponents.


每页的消息:
讨论板列表
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
帖子搜索:  

31. 十二月 2008, 04:59:31
DarwinKoala 
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, 05:11:54
Pedro Martínez 
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, 07:18:51
MrWCF 
题目: Re: Did I lose this game?
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!


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