Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

From: js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 10:55:38 +0000

In article <21se5v$a22@im4u.cs.utexas.edu>, russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams) writes:
|> In article <1993Jul9.041048.22088@infodev.cam.ac.uk> js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan) writes:
|> >|> ] As I said rules and formulae are not the same thing.
|> >|>
|> >|> No they are not. When applying to a game, a formula is a rule of the game
|> >|> given using a mathematical representation. All relevant formulae are rules, but
|> >|> not all rules are formulae.
|> >
|> >Oh come on.  Everyone else has been using "Formulae" to mean the rules by which
|> >the game operates and "rules" to mean those rules which are published.  Why do
|> >you have to be different?
|>
|> You don't speak for me.  I agree with Bruno and furthermore, I think
|> he stated the point very well.  Formulas are PART of the rules!

Look.  If you define rules to be "what the source implements" then of course the
"formulas" will be part of the rules.  Most people define the rules as those in
the published documentation.  And in this argument so far _most_ people have been
using "rules" to mean the documentation and "formulae" to mean the mathematical
equations by which concepts in those rules are implemented in the code.  The
discussion is whether or not to have these mathematical equations in the
published rules or not.  If you'd read the entire of this thread, or even part of
it, you would know this.

"Formulae are PART of the rules" is proof by axiom.  Cuts no ice with me

|> John, if you really use "rules" to mean those rules which are published,
|> then I hope you never talk about "incomplete rules" or "holes in the rules"
|> since by definition the published rules are the complete rules...

And how do you work this out?  Have you never played a game where a certain
situation which is valid under the rules is not covered by them?  How about if
Chess had no rules about what to do if you have no valid move which does not put
your king in check?  Is that a win or a loss or a draw?

|> This whole notion of forumulas not really being rules makes no sense
|> to me.  All of you anti-forumala people don't seem to mind if a game
|> reveals some formulas.  Suppose the game explains that victory is
|> determined by who has the most victory points on turn 20, and that
|> each turn your victory point total is increased by the amount of
|> points you've earned that turn.  Is that objectionable to you to know?
|> Formulas are all through rules.  You seem to only complain if they
|> come in the form of a mathematical equation.  (E.g. Graham's recently
|> objecting to explicitly stating that fuel cost is given by an equation
|> f = a*exp(b*d) or whatever, but being happy with saying "fuel
|> cost depends exponentially on distance".)

Some of us think there is an important distinction between being able to predict
to the exact unit how much fuel a jump will take, and knowing that a certain
ammount will be more than adequate.  I'm not anti-formula, but there are games in
which knowing the exact formulae would make them less enjoyable games.

And this doesn't mean we don't want to know how the game works.  Plenty of
recumbent straw men testify that some people thing we think differntly.

|> In a boardgame, the formulas MUST be known, or the players could
|> not resolve their turns.  (Unless another person moderated for them;
|> in 99% of boardgames, the players resolve all actions themselves.)
|> Do you folks refuse to play boardgames for this reason?
|>
|> Russ

You're comparing apples and oranges.  I expect different things from a board game
than I do from a computer moderated pbm precisely because the board game is
limited by the need for the players to ajudicate their own actions, and a
computer moderated pbm is not.

John

References

Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 19:53:01 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 20:12:30 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)
Fri, 09 Jul 1993 04:10:48 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Mon, 12 Jul 1993 19:31:11 +0000