Re: Brandubh 7x7
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2020 8:29 pm
What we've done on this site is "Experimental Archaeology". We've tested rules as much as possible based on historical information, tested if rules work or don't work and how they work.
The Linné diary is taken as a point of departure for the Historical Hnefatafl. It leads to the Saami Tablut 9x9, which was found to work very well.
We also found that the historical rules are scalable to boards larger than 9x9, so that a setup of pieces for a balanced game can always be found.
Scaling down to the smaller board 7x7, however, was found to be not equally simple.
It was necessary to introduce win in corner, and the best setup has the game balance +1.47, which is ok but not very good.
Then you suggested the rule change for the squares next to the throne:
The king is captured by 4 attackers when on the throne, and by 2 attackers everywhere else, also on the squares next to the throne.
This idea is straightforward and logical, the king is now treated on the four squares next to the throne just like on any other square (except for the throne).
And it works very well, game balance +1.16
I wrote a note here about the phenomenon "Small boards":
viewtopic.php?f=1&p=1227#p1227
Since the simple idea of all squares are equal, only the throne differs, works well, then it is not necessary to make the rule more complex by capturing by 2 or 3.
Now, is this rule change then for certain just a modern invention?
The direct line from the Linné diary leads to the "Brandubh 1" with the balance +1.47. This is not bad and could very well have been played this way in the old times.
However, being far from perfect, it's also probable that some ancient players went through much the same considerations as we've been with this, and your solution being so straightforward and simple, some ancient players could very well have ended up with the same solution ("Brandubh 2").
So, "Brandubh 2" could be a historical brandubh game as much as "Brandubh 1".
The Linné diary is taken as a point of departure for the Historical Hnefatafl. It leads to the Saami Tablut 9x9, which was found to work very well.
We also found that the historical rules are scalable to boards larger than 9x9, so that a setup of pieces for a balanced game can always be found.
Scaling down to the smaller board 7x7, however, was found to be not equally simple.
It was necessary to introduce win in corner, and the best setup has the game balance +1.47, which is ok but not very good.
Then you suggested the rule change for the squares next to the throne:
The king is captured by 4 attackers when on the throne, and by 2 attackers everywhere else, also on the squares next to the throne.
This idea is straightforward and logical, the king is now treated on the four squares next to the throne just like on any other square (except for the throne).
And it works very well, game balance +1.16
I wrote a note here about the phenomenon "Small boards":
viewtopic.php?f=1&p=1227#p1227
Since the simple idea of all squares are equal, only the throne differs, works well, then it is not necessary to make the rule more complex by capturing by 2 or 3.
Now, is this rule change then for certain just a modern invention?
The direct line from the Linné diary leads to the "Brandubh 1" with the balance +1.47. This is not bad and could very well have been played this way in the old times.
However, being far from perfect, it's also probable that some ancient players went through much the same considerations as we've been with this, and your solution being so straightforward and simple, some ancient players could very well have ended up with the same solution ("Brandubh 2").
So, "Brandubh 2" could be a historical brandubh game as much as "Brandubh 1".
