Re: About the draw concept
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:36 am
Evans wrote:
Congratulations Adam
My view on the concept of draw forts is a little different from the current Copenhagen rules. As Hagbard showed, it is possible still for White to go for a draw from the outset, by simply placing two pieces at the board edge and building the already problematic centre-fort. In the Fetlar Rules, White obviously has the draw leverage over Black, and in a game where the goals of each player are equally possible, this unbalances the game. In the current Copenhagen rules, we have made it impossible for an immediate draw fort by saying that Black wins if he encircles White, and White can win if he builds a King-mobile edge draw-fort. Not only is there a problem with the in-between drawing draw-forts, but also the additions. When Black encircles White, it is usually only a formality that it is a win, unless a centre fort is built. Again, in the Copenhagen Rules, White needs only put two pieces (or just the King) at the board edge, and nothing has changed. This, in comparison to White's new method of winning, is unbalanced. White has been given a completely new way to win. This is generally to make up for the leverage White did hold over Black, but that has not fully been corrected, and is also unfair; in a balanced game, no player should have any leverage over the other than the goal, and Whit getting an extra goal is unfair. When White is attacking the corners, Black can no longer place pieces at the corner, and those blockades using only the necessary 3 pieces are hardly possible anymore. White now has essentially the winning conditions of corner Tafl and edge Tafl. Although our tournament is incomplete, I have worked out the percentage of wins of the completed games thus far:
65% White wins (12% edge-fort wins)
35% Black wins
Here we can see the imbalance of the current Copenhagen rules, although certainly we will glean a better idea once the tournament has been completed. Although White can hold this new form of winning over Black when going for his other goal (in my opinion an asymmetrical game like Tafl should only have one goal for each player), I would agree that it highlights and utilises the edge squares in a new and exciting way, making amazing moves harder to come by and complicating the position. I believe, though, that the current Copenhagen rules do this in the wrong way, and that this should be achieved by another means. This is my recommendation:
1) The use of a centre-fort results in a loss for White; no matter what the manner
2) Any fort created at tho board edge that is impregnable, no matter what the position on the board (garboed King, mobile-King edge fort, immobile King edge fort) is a draw
Obviously the 'encirclement rule' still applies. These two rules are simple and utilise the board edges, so that the only way a draw can be done is by using the spaces left open when Black tried to block the corner, rather than hindering Black's blocking the corner because otherwise he is likely to lose by an edge-fort.
Congratulations Adam
My view on the concept of draw forts is a little different from the current Copenhagen rules. As Hagbard showed, it is possible still for White to go for a draw from the outset, by simply placing two pieces at the board edge and building the already problematic centre-fort. In the Fetlar Rules, White obviously has the draw leverage over Black, and in a game where the goals of each player are equally possible, this unbalances the game. In the current Copenhagen rules, we have made it impossible for an immediate draw fort by saying that Black wins if he encircles White, and White can win if he builds a King-mobile edge draw-fort. Not only is there a problem with the in-between drawing draw-forts, but also the additions. When Black encircles White, it is usually only a formality that it is a win, unless a centre fort is built. Again, in the Copenhagen Rules, White needs only put two pieces (or just the King) at the board edge, and nothing has changed. This, in comparison to White's new method of winning, is unbalanced. White has been given a completely new way to win. This is generally to make up for the leverage White did hold over Black, but that has not fully been corrected, and is also unfair; in a balanced game, no player should have any leverage over the other than the goal, and Whit getting an extra goal is unfair. When White is attacking the corners, Black can no longer place pieces at the corner, and those blockades using only the necessary 3 pieces are hardly possible anymore. White now has essentially the winning conditions of corner Tafl and edge Tafl. Although our tournament is incomplete, I have worked out the percentage of wins of the completed games thus far:
65% White wins (12% edge-fort wins)
35% Black wins
Here we can see the imbalance of the current Copenhagen rules, although certainly we will glean a better idea once the tournament has been completed. Although White can hold this new form of winning over Black when going for his other goal (in my opinion an asymmetrical game like Tafl should only have one goal for each player), I would agree that it highlights and utilises the edge squares in a new and exciting way, making amazing moves harder to come by and complicating the position. I believe, though, that the current Copenhagen rules do this in the wrong way, and that this should be achieved by another means. This is my recommendation:
1) The use of a centre-fort results in a loss for White; no matter what the manner
2) Any fort created at tho board edge that is impregnable, no matter what the position on the board (garboed King, mobile-King edge fort, immobile King edge fort) is a draw
Obviously the 'encirclement rule' still applies. These two rules are simple and utilise the board edges, so that the only way a draw can be done is by using the spaces left open when Black tried to block the corner, rather than hindering Black's blocking the corner because otherwise he is likely to lose by an edge-fort.