Diplomacy Zine -- EP #195 Chapter Seven From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Wed, 05 Sep 1990 18:08:22 +0000 Issue #195 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************ In fact, you will never make your mark as a writer unless you develop a respect for words and a curiosity about their shades of meaning that is almost obsessive. ************************************************************************ Chapter One contains: BLITZKRIEG, GETTYSBURG, RED STORM RISING, and PASSCHENDAELE And is published by daybell@aludra.usc.edu/Donald Daybell Chapter Two contains: DRAGONSLAYER, JACAL, MANHATTAN, VERSAILLES, DRESDEN, and KHAN And is published by tedward@cs.cornell.edu/Ted Fischer Chapter Three contains: MULHOUSE, DAWN PATROL, SNIKKEL-2, BERLIN, SNIKKEL-1, EL ALAMEIN, SQUALANE, UNGAWE, CAPTAIN CAVEMAN And is published by cwekx@htikub5.bitnet/Constantijn Wekx Chapter Four contains: NICKEL, OZARK, DEADLY DAGGERS, YORKTOWN, MONTREUIL-SUR-MER Chapter Five contains: ARCHANGEL, BORDEL, ERIS, MASADA, and YALTA And is published by bmers58!dgibbs@bnrgate/David Gibbs Chapter Six contains: TOKUGAWA, BERLIN WALL, HIROSHIMA, GENGHIS KHAN, SEA LION, VIOLENT PEACE And is published by sinhaa@mcmaster.ca/Anand Sinha ------------ Chapter Seven ------------ No games in this issue. Publisher comments: Quote is from William Zinsser and was provided by Video Dienstag. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* QUIZ! *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Quiz provided by loeb@rita.laas.fr/Daniel Loeb: What two provinces on the standard diplomacy board are the best connected? By best connected, I mean that there are the most independant paths connecting the two provinces where two paths are considered independendant if they contain no provinces in common except for their start and finish. For the purposes of this problem, we make no distinction between sea and land provinces. In case of a tie, give all possible pairs. Example, the paths Bud-Gal-Ukr-Mos and Bud-Vie-Boh-Sil-War-Mos and Bud-Ser-Bul-Bla-Sev-Mos are all considered independant paths. The following was scribed by AS365156@Orion.YorkU.CA code named Video Dienstag: From Fol Si Fie #123 "I'm OK Charlie", Involving The Sheltered Power One of the reasons that a large and growing central power finds it so much more difficult to win a game than a corresponding corner power is that, due to his central position, he threatens almost every other surviving nation in a way that seems to bother most players the most: through their centers. A surprising number of players will calmly watch a power at the other end of the board reach 18 centers, and as long as *theirs* aren't being challenged, they won't lift a finger. A corner power can count on at least one fellow at the opposite end of the board who will do nothing to resist his growth -- and, in fact, will often disrupt the resistance of other players for his own short- term ends. This attitude of "I'm OK Charlie, don't bother me with your problems" is responsible for a lot of "easy" wins by players who are lucky and clever enough to keep out of the way of one or two self-serving players. As a member of an alliance which is trying to halt a winning bid by another nation, what can you do about this attitude from a "sheltered" power at the other end of the board? We assume here that a toe-to-toe punch-up with both the winning and the sheltered players won't do the trick, that is, you *need* some sort of cooperation from the sheltered player in order to stop the win. We'll assume further that the winning power is close enough to success that the problem is clear to everyone: that is, there's no need to convince anyone that he's really out to win, only to persuade them to do something about it. A crude approach, but perhaps the best to use against a less experienced player is a simple threat. "If you don't join us in stopping so-and-so, resistance is hopeless ... but we'll make sure we take you down first!" This threatens his centers, which are near-and-dear to every stripe of player, so you may be able to enforce compliance. The trouble is that the "main" alliance will have to maintain enough force in rear areas to make the threat a credible one: pressed into service in this way, your reluctant new "ally" will always be looking for a way to get back at you safely. The cure may be worse than the disease --- but if the guy screws you up and all is truly lost, it may give the alliance some satisfaction to carry out the threat before the game ends. If at all possible, try to get a "sheltered power" *un*sheltered in some way. If you must give ground to the winning power, give it preferably in an area which brings him toward the sphere of influence of the sheltered guy. Once there is a frontier between them, it's much easier to convince the sheltered guy to concentrate on it. However, if the winning player is really any good, he'll probably be able to sidestep this trap while convincing his opposite number of his undying friendship. Another way is to invite the sheltered units forward to the battle lines, where they can take an active part in the decision. Most players are willing to try and stop a winner if they have something to *do*: it's a request to back off and sit with his thumb up his rear that frustrates a sheltered power (whether the alliance is successful and makes profits that he doesn't share in, or whether it fails and someone else is able to hang on for second place while he sits and watches). However, this involves trust on the part of the main alliance --- the sheltered power's centers are safe, while his units are often sitting next to the centers of the rest of the alliance. If things go wrong, the sheltered power will probably stab for second, with no retaliation possible. It all depends how much of a risk the alliance is prepared to accept for the chance of stopping the win. Obviously, too, this strategy is incompatible with the threat option discussed above. Sometimes a diplomatic motivation is enough to nudge someone in the right direction. *Lie* to the sheltered player (horrors!): tell him that the winning player is laughing at him and describing him publicly as a fool for allowing him to continue making gains. You have to be a bit subtle about this, though, since you can hardly hide that you have your own axe to grind in telling him this. As always, your lies have to be believable --- but, in fact, such a lie is probably not far off the truth; in a sense, every winning player despises his puppets and other helpers if they have any other option. Still in the dirty-trick category, you may be able to win by guile where you would lose by brute force. If you'd prefer to remove the sheltered player from the game, get him started by whatever means against the winning power, then stab him. This must be quick and complete, for any remnants will be firmly allied to the winning cause. Unless he's an unreliable NMRing player (one of the best reasons for discarding his help in the first place), you'll be in for a rough ride from his remaining desperado units behind the lines. If the sheltered power is a fair size, you may still be better off by counting on him to drop out entirely and be replaced by a competent Calhamerian ("win-or-draw-only") player. A smart winning player will naturally try to frustrate all these ploys, by paying attention to his grand strategy and keeping in close, friendly communication with the sheltered player. He can afford to offer him anything reasonable for a power of his size -- second place or whatever -- and if they go together, it should be no trouble to finish off the opposition despite the above advice. Here's a letter from Eric Brosius <ebrosius@lucy.wellesley.edu>: Interesting to see Howard Mahler's original article in EP after you printed my explanation of the article previously (titled "The Mahler Game Completion Index".) Now your readers can decide whether or not I performed a socially useful function by presenting Mahler's ideas in a different way. It's interesting to note that while Birsan and Pulsipher were both fine players, there's little question that Birsan was (is) the better player. Here's info from apple!well!jef: [Our story so far: If you're getting this message, you either asked to be added to the EFF mailing list, or asked for general information about the EFF. We have sent out two mailings before this one; if you missed them and want copies, send a request to eff-news-request@well.sf.ca.us. We now have two Usenet newsgroups set up, in the "inet" distribution. The moderated newsgroup, comp.org.eff.news, will carry everything we send to this mailing list, plus other things of interest. If your site gets the newsgroup and you want to read this stuff there instead of through the mailing list, send a request to eff-news-request@well.sf.ca.us and I'll be happy to take you off the list. And now...] ************************************************************ About the EFF General Information Revised August 1990 ************************************************************ The EFF (formally the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.) has been established to help civilize the electronic frontier; to make it truly useful and beneficial not just to a technical elite, but to everyone; and to do this in a way which is in keeping with our society's highest traditions of the free and open flow of information and communication. The EFF now has legal status as a corporation in the state of Massachusetts. We are in the process of applying to the IRS for status as a non-profit, 501c3 organization. Once that status is granted contributions to the EFF will be tax-deductible. ************************************************************ Mission of the EFF ************************************************************ 1. to engage in and support educational activities which increase popular understanding of the opportunities and challenges posed by developments in computing and telecommunications. 2. to develop among policy-makers a better understanding of the issues underlying free and open telecommunications, and support the creation of legal and structural approaches which will ease the assimilation of these new technologies by society. 3. to raise public awareness about civil liberties issues arising from the rapid advancement in the area of new computer-based communications media and, where necessary, support litigation in the public interest to preserve, protect, and extend First Amendment rights within the realm of computing and telecommunications technology. 4. to encourage and support the development of new tools which will endow non-technical users with full and easy access to computer-based telecommunications. ************************************************************ Current EFF Activities ************************************************************ > We are helping educate policy makers and the general public. To this end we have funded a significant two-year project on computing and civil liberties to be managed by the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. With it, we aim to acquaint policy makers and law enforcement officials of the civil liberties issues which may lie hidden in the brambles of telecommunications policy. Members of the EFF are speaking at computer and government conferences and meetings throughout the country to raise awareness about the important civil liberties issues. We are in the process of forming alliances with other other public interest organizations concerned with the development of a digital national information infrastructure. The EFF is in the early stages of software design and development of programs for personal computers which provide simplified and enhanced access to network services such as mail and netnews. Because our resources are already fully committed to these projects, we are not at this time considering additional grant proposals. > We are helping defend the innocent. We gave substantial legal support in the criminal defense of Craig Neidorf, the publisher of Phrack, an on-line magazine devoted to telecommunications, computer security and hacking. Neidorf was indicted on felony charges of wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property for the electronic publication of a document which someone else had removed, without Neidorf's participation, from a Bell South computer. The government contended that the republication of proprietary business information, even if the information is of public significance, is illegal. The EFF submitted two friend of the court briefs arguing that the publication of the disputed document was constitutionally protected speech. We also were instrumental in locating an expert witness who located documents which were publicly available from Bell South which contained all the information in the disputed document. This information was critical in discrediting the government's expert witness. The government dropped its prosecution in the middle of the trial, when it became aware that its case was untenable. EFF attorneys are also representing Steve Jackson Games in its efforts to secure the complete return and restoration of all computer equipment seized in the Secret Service raid on its offices and to understand what might have been the legal basis for the raid. We are not involved in these legal matters as a "cracker's defense fund," despite press reports you may have read, but rather to ensure that the Constitution will continue to apply to digital media. We intend to demonstrate legally that speech is speech whether it finds form in ink or in ASCII. ************************************************************ What can you do? ************************************************************ For starters, you can spread the word about EFF as widely as possible, both on and off the Net. Feel free, for example, to distribute any of the materials included in this or other EFF mailings. You can turn some of the immense processing horsepower of your distributed Mind to the task of finding useful new metaphors for community, expression, property, privacy and other realities of the physical world which seem up for grabs in these less tangible regions. And you can try to communicate to technically unsophisticated friends the extent to which their future freedoms and well-being may depend on understanding the broad forms of digital communication, if not necessarily the technical details. Finally, you can keep in touch with us at any of the addresses listed below. Please pass on your thoughts, concerns, insights, contacts, suggestions, and news. And we will return the favor. ************************************************************ Staying in Touch ************************************************************ Send requests to be added to or dropped from the EFF mailing list or other general correspondence to eff-request@well.sf.ca.us. We will periodically mail updates on EFF-related activities to this list. If you receive any USENET newsgroups, your site may carry two new newsgroups in the INET distribution called comp.org.eff.news and comp.org.eff.talk. The former is a moderated newsgroup of announcements, responses to announcements, and selected discussion drawn from the unmoderated "talk" group and the mailing list. Everything that goes out over the EFF mailing list will also be posted in comp.org.eff.news, so if you read the newsgroup you don't need to subscribe to the mailing list. Postings submitted to the moderated newsgroup may be reprinted by the EFF. To submit a posting, you may send mail to eff@well.sf.ca.us. There is an active EFF conference on the Well, as well as many other related conferences of interest to EFF supporters. As of August 1990, access to the Well is $8/month plus $3/hour. Outside the S.F. Bay area, telecom access for $5/hr. is available through CPN. Register online at (415) 332-6106. A document library containing all of the EFF news releases, John Barlow's "Crime and Puzzlement" and others is available on the Well. We are working toward providing FTP availability into the document library through an EFF host system to be set up in Cambridge, Mass. Details will be forthcoming. Our Address: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. One Cambridge Center, Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02142 (617) 577-1385 617) 225-2347 (fax) After August 25, 1990: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. 155 Second Street Cambridge, MA 02142 We will distribute the new telephone number once we have it. ************************************************************ Mitchell Kapor (mkapor@well.sf.ca.us) John Perry Barlow (barlow@well.sf.ca.us) Postings and email for the moderated newsgroup should be sent to "comp-org-eff-news@well.sf.ca.us". ************************************************************ Letter from sun!ub.cc.umich.edu!Richard_V._Lamb/Richard V. Lamb: As for E-Prot's low showing in the Runestone Poll, have you considered that one of the policies of the 'zine promotes other 'zines (reprinting their articles)? If you had more original articles, the zine might get a higher rating. Here's an article from loeb@rita.laas.fr/Daniel Loeb: Here's a new (non-FRP) game for you to ponder. It's called 'Smother' and was recently used as THE GAME in a computer vs. computer game contest at UCF. I am interested in any questions, comments, suggestions or strategy ideas you wish to post. Have at it! The Board: Any 8x8 rectangular board, such as a chess board or othello board. (Known as the 'Smotherboard') The Pieces: One Black marker, one White marker, up to 62 neutral Blockers. The Object: 'Smother' your opponent - surround the opposing marker with blockers so that it cannot make a legal move. Notation: I will use '.' for an empty square, '#' for a blocker, 'w' or 'W' for the white marker and 'b' or 'B' for the black marker (I will use the capital to indicate who moves next.) I will also use standard chess algebraic notation to identify squares on the board. The Start: The White marker starts on f6 and the black on c3. Black moves first. a b c d e f g h 8 . . . . . . . . 8 7 . . . . . . . . 7 6 . . . . . w . . 6 5 . . . . . . . . 5 4 . . . . . . . . 4 3 . . B . . . . . 3 2 . . . . . . . . 2 1 . . . . . . . . 1 a b c d e f g h Turns: The players alternate turns. On each turn, a player moves his/her/its marker and places blockers. The player must move at least one square, must place at least one blocker, and the sum of the number of squares moved and blockers placed must be 6 (EXCEPTION: on Black's FIRST move, the sum must be 3.) A marker is moved one square at a time. It may move from a square to any of the 8 adjacent squares which are not already occupied by blockers or the opponent's marker; However, it may NOT reenter any square it has passed through in that turn (including the square where it started.) Blockers are placed AFTER movement. Blockers may be placed in any of the 8 squares adjacent to the marker's final resting place which are not already occupied by blockers or the opponent's marker. I will denote a turn by a list of movement squares followed by a delimiter (such as a colon or slash) followed by a list of squares where blockers are placed. Notice that there must always be 6 squares listed, except for Black's first move in which there are only 3. The End: The game ends when a player is not able to make a legal move. This player loses, and the opponent wins. The loser is said to have been 'Smothered.' Examples: Suppose Black's first move was d4 d5:d6 (Remember, only 3 on the opening move!) a b c d e f g h 8 . . . . . . . . 8 7 . . . . . . . . 7 6 . . . # . W . . 6 5 . . . b . . . . 5 4 . . . . . . . . 4 3 . . . . . . . . 3 2 . . . . . . . . 2 1 . . . . . . . . 1 a b c d e f g h Here, White counters with f5 e4 d3:c4 d4 e4 a b c d e f g h 8 . . . . . . . . 8 7 . . . . . . . . 7 6 . . . # . . . . 6 5 . . . B . . . . 5 4 . . # # # . . . 4 3 . . . w . . . . 3 2 . . . . . . . . 2 1 . . . . . . . . 1 a b c d e f g h In this (unlikely) position, White has lost - the White marker cannot combine movement with placing blockers to total 6. a b c d e f g h 8 . . . . . # . W 8 7 . . . . . # # . 7 6 . . . # . . # . 6 5 . . . b . . # # 5 4 . . . . . . . . 4 3 . . . . . . . . 3 2 . . . . . . . . 2 1 . . . . . . . . 1 a b c d e f g h In this (unlikely) position, White has not lost ... yet. White can make a move like g8 g7 h6 h7:g7 h6 (but will lose on the next turn.) a b c d e f g h 8 . . . . . # . W 8 7 . . . . . # . . 7 6 . . . # . # # . 6 5 . . . b . . # # 5 4 . . . . . . . . 4 3 . . . . . . . . 3 2 . . . . . . . . 2 1 . . . . . . . . 1 a b c d e f g h Interesting Stuff: A game of Smother cannot last more than 60 turns, and ties are not possible. This makes Smother a good game for computer competition - however, it makes the game provably unfair. One player must have has a forced win from the beginning of the game - but which, and how is it done? You are probably wondering why Black's first move is only a half-move. It helps to make the game more balanced - after each turn the moving player is a half-move ahead, rather than the first player always going 1 move ahead and the second player always catching up. This is not a very lucid explanation - it's something which is very intuitive to me but which I have difficulty stating succinctly. If you would like a more lucid but more lengthy explanation, I'd be happy to post one. FlipSymming: If a player can force the board to be radially symmetric and neither player has access to the center four squares, then the player with the move has LOST! The other player must simply do exactly what the first player does, just rotated 180 degrees. This will always be possible - thus, player 1 MUST run out of moves first! (Note: player 1 can make an unrepeatable move by using the center 4 squares - that's why they must be inaccessible to guarantee the win.) This strategy has been named 'FlipSymming' by the man who first came upon it, Mark Schnitzius. OptiFill: There will usually come a time when the markers are in regions completely separated by blockers, and they cannot get to each other. Now, they must fill their respective regions as slowly as possible. This has become known as OptiFilling, and requires a little thought. A common strategy of OptiFilling is Rocking: moving back and forth between two parts of the region on alternate turns. Short Games: White can commit suicide on its first move with f7 g8 h8:g8 g7 h7. (note that it's not dead yet, but will be after Black makes any legal move.) The shortest game possible: Black> b2 a1:a2 White> e5 d4 c3 c2:b1 b2 (and variations of same) Variations: Try playing Smother on a larger board - 10x10 or 12x12 Try playing on a larger board with 8 moves instead of 6 Try playing on a Hex grid (This is a good one!) Barroom Smother: Go to a place which has chess boards at the tables. Use salt & pepper shakers as markers and quarters as blockers. Each player provides his own quarters, and the winner takes all the quarters on the board. Resigning is not allowed, so if a player is convinced he has lost, he must commit suicide (and lose more quarters.) Smother was used as THE GAME in a computer vs. computer game contest. The two competing programs were Asphyxia++, written by Robert Franceschini, Chris Gouge, Matt Lavoie and Jamie McGauhey, and Whistler (Whistler Smother ... get it?) written by Mark Schnitzius. The results will be sent in another file. Asphyxia had two strategies, Passive and Aggressive, and an excellent OptiFill algorithm. Whistler tried to utilize FlipSymming - if it can't force symmetry, it evades. 8 . . . . . . . . 8 7 . . . . . . . . 7 Here's an article from loeb@rita.laas.fr/Daniel Loeb: DIPLOMACY PROGRAMMING PROJECT The Snake I received recently the rules for a new game SMOTHER by David Van Brackle and the results of three computer competitions involving this game. (Included in a separate message.) I mention this game only because it reminds me of an old fast action videogame SNAKE which I used to play as a slow action board game. The game is played by any number of players. Each player in turn places their "head" on the board in any open space. After that players take turns moving their "head" to an adjacent open space while leaving a "tail" counter in the space their "head" used to occupy. When a player's head is completely surrounded, he is eliminated from play. The last remaining player is the winner, and the others share equally in defeat. Clearly this game leaves plenty of openings for ganging up on other players. And any computer implementation of this game would have to allow the computer opponents to negotiate with each other according to some sort of protocol just as we have envisaged for a computer implementation of Diplomacy. Nevertheless, SNAKE is obviously a much simpler game than is diplomacy. And if necessary, we could implement SNAKE in order to gain more experience on implementing multiplayer games with negotiations before trying a game as complicated as diplomacy. As usual, please send your comments to me, and I will forward them to the list. Also, if you are not on the Diplomacy Programming Project list, please ask me. Here's an article from loeb@rita.laas.fr/Daniel Loeb: This is Round 1 of the Smother tournament. This file is the output of the Arbiter program (written by Don Cross), with annotations added and many midgame boards removed. Black team: 6 (M.Lavoie, C.Gouge, R.Franceschini, J.McGauhey / Asphyxia) White team: 5 (Mark Schnitzius / Whistler) When this game started: Sat Aug 11 09:24:26 1990 8 . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . w . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . B . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Asphyxia is in Passive mode ... Black> b2 a2:a1 8 . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . W . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 b . . . . . . . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h .. Which plays right into the hands of Whistler's FlipSymming! White> e7 e8 f8 g8 h7:h8 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . . . . . . . w 6 . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 B . . . . . . . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Hang on ... this will take a while. Black> b3 c4 d5 e4 f3:g2 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . . . . . . . W 6 . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . b . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h White> g8 f8 e8 d7 c6:b7 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . # . . . . . . 6 . . w . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . B . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Black> g4 h5 h6 g6 f5:g4 White> c7 d7 d6 c5 c4:b5 Black> g6 h7 g8 f7 e6:d5 White> c5 d6 e5 d4 d3:e4 Black> f7 g8 h7 g7 f6:e5 White> c4 c5 b4 b3 c3:d4 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . # . . . . . . 6 . . . . . B . . 5 . # . # # . . . 4 . . . # # . # . 3 . . w . . . . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Theoretically, Whistler has won. It has a symmetric board with the center four squares inaccessible (in fact, they're filled with blockers!) and it's Asphyxia's turn. But theory and practice are different things ... Black> g7 h7 h6 g6 f7:g8 White> b4 a5 a4 b3 c2:b1 Black> g7 h7 g6 f6 e7:f8 White> b3 a4 b4 c3 d2:c1 Black> f7 g7 f6 e6 d7:c8 White> c3 b4 c4 d3 e2:f1 Black> e8 f7 g7 g6 f6:g7 White> d3 c4 c5 b4 c3:b2 Black> g6 g5 f5 e6 e7:e8 White> b4 c5 c4 d3 d2:d1 Black> f7 g6 h7 h6 g5:h6 White> c3 c4 b3 a4 b4:a3 Black> h5 h4 g3 f4 e3:f4 White> a5 a6 b6 c7 d6:c5 Black> f3 g3 f2 e2 d3:c4 White> c7 d8 d7 e7 e6:f5 Black> e3 f3 g3 f2 e2:e1 White> e7 d8 c7 c6 d7:d8 Black> f3 g3 f2 e3 d3:c2 White> c7 b6 c6 d6 e6:f7 Black> e3 e2 f3 g3 f2:g1 White> d7 e7 d6 c6 c7:b8 Black> g3 f3 e3 d3 e2:d3 White> b6 c6 d6 e7 d7:e6 Black> d2 e3 f3 f2 g3:h2 White> e7 d6 c7 c6 b6:a7 Black> f3 e3 d2 e2 f2:g3 White> c6 d7 e7 d6 c7:b6 8 . # # # # # # # 7 # # w . . # # . 6 . # . . # . . # 5 . # # # # # . . 4 . . # # # # # . 3 # . . # . . # . 2 . # # . . B # # 1 # # # # # # # . a b c d e f g h The board is now partitioned, and Asphyxia starts OptiFilling. Black> e3 d2 c3 b4 a5:a6 8 . # # # # # # # 7 # # W . . # # . 6 # # . . # . . # 5 b # # # # # . . 4 . . # # # # # . 3 # . . # . . # . 2 . # # . . . # # 1 # # # # # # # . a b c d e f g h The theory of FlipSymming still holds, even though the board is partitioned. However, due to a logic error, the partitioned board causes Whistler to abondon FlipSymming and enter its OptiFill routine - and Whistler doesn't OptiFill as well as Asphyxia! White> d7 e7 f6 g5 g6:h7 8 . # # # # # # # 7 # # . . . # # # 6 # # . . # . w # 5 B # # # # # . . 4 . . # # # # # . 3 # . . # . . # . 2 . # # . . . # # 1 # # # # # # # . a b c d e f g h Black> b4 c3 d2 e3 e2:f3 8 . # # # # # # # 7 # # . . . # # # 6 # # . . # . W # 5 . # # # # # . . 4 . . # # # # # . 3 # . . # . # # . 2 . # # . b . # # 1 # # # # # # # . a b c d e f g h A brutal example of the inferiority of Whistler's OptiFill. It should have stuck with FlipSymming! White> h5 h4 g5 f6 e7:f6 8 . # # # # # # # 7 # # . . w # # # 6 # # . . # # . # 5 . # # # # # . . 4 . . # # # # # . 3 # . . # . # # . 2 . # # . B . # # 1 # # # # # # # . a b c d e f g h Black> f2 e3 d2 c3 b3:a2 8 . # # # # # # # 7 # # . . W # # # 6 # # . . # # . # 5 . # # # # # . . 4 . . # # # # # . 3 # b . # . # # . 2 # # # . . . # # 1 # # # # # # # . a b c d e f g h At this point, Whistler threw in the towel. It hasn't really lost yet, as it still has a legal move, but the result is inevitable. Thus a sure, mathematically provable victory for Whistler becomes an agonizing defeat at the hands of a logic error and Asphyxia's superior OptiFill. Round one: Asphyxia This is Round 2 of the tournament. Black team: 5 (Mark Schnitzius / Whistler) White team: 6 (M.Lavoie, C.Gouge, R.Franceschini, J.McGauhey / Asphyxia) When this game started: Sat Aug 11 10:00:40 1990 8 . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . w . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . B . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Whistler makes the perfect 1st move for FlipSymming ... Black> d4:d5 e4 8 . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . W . . 5 . . . # . . . . 4 . . . b # . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Asphyxia is in Agressive mode ... White> f5 e5:f6 f5 f4 d6 8 . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . # . # . . 5 . . . # w # . . 4 . . . B # # . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Asphyxia's aggressive move has made the board impossible for Whistler's FlipSymming - Whistler would have to end up where he is now, and that's illegal - so Whistler runs ... Black> c5 b6 a7 a8 b7:c6 8 . . . . . . . . 7 . b . . . . . . 6 . . # # . # . . 5 . . . # W # . . 4 . . . . # # . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h ... And White chases ... White> e6 d7 c7:c8 b8 b6 8 . # # . . . . . 7 . B w . . . . . 6 . # # # . # . . 5 . . . # . # . . 4 . . . . # # . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h ... And so it goes. Black> a8 a7 a6 a5 b4:c3 8 . # # . . . . . 7 . . W . . . . . 6 . # # # . # . . 5 . . . # . # . . 4 . b . . # # . . 3 . . # . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h White> b7 a6 b5:c5 c4 a5 8 . # # . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . # # # . # . . 5 # w # # . # . . 4 . B # . # # . . 3 . . # . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Black> a4 b3 c2 d3 e2:f1 8 . # # . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . # # # . # . . 5 # W # # . # . . 4 . . # . # # . . 3 . . # . . . . . 2 . . . . b . . . 1 . . . . . # . . a b c d e f g h White> b4 b3 c2 d3:e3 d2 8 . # # . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . # # # . # . . 5 # . # # . # . . 4 . . # . # # . . 3 . . # w # . . . 2 . . . # B . . . 1 . . . . . # . . a b c d e f g h Black> f3 g4 g5 g6 f7:e8 White> d4 e5 e6 e7:f8 e6 Black> g7 g6 g5 g4 g3:h2 White> f7 g6 h5 h4:h3 g4 Black> f3 e2 d3 c2 b2:b3 White> g3 f3 e2 d3 c2:c1 Black> a3 a4 b5 a6 b7:a7 8 . # # . # # . . 7 # b . . . . . . 6 . # # # # # . . 5 # . # # . # . . 4 . . # . # # # . 3 . # # . # . . # 2 . . W # . . . # 1 . . # . . # . . a b c d e f g h Asphyxia can't get to Whistler - so it defaults to Passive mode. White> d3 e2 f3 g3 f2:g1 8 . # # . # # . . 7 # B . . . . . . 6 . # # # # # . . 5 # . # # . # . . 4 . . # . # # # . 3 . # # . # . . # 2 . . . # . w . # 1 . . # . . # # . a b c d e f g h Whistler is still running ... but where? Not many choices left. Black> c7 d8 e7 f7 g7:h6 8 . # # . # # . . 7 # . . . . . b . 6 . # # # # # . # 5 # . # # . # . . 4 . . # . # # # . 3 . # # . # . . # 2 . . . # . W . # 1 . . # . . # # . a b c d e f g h Gotcha! White> g3 h4 h5 g6:f7 h7 8 . # # . # # . . 7 # . . . . # B # 6 . # # # # # w # 5 # . # # . # . . 4 . . # . # # # . 3 . # # . # . . # 2 . . . # . . . # 1 . . # . . # # . a b c d e f g h Round Two, Game, Set and Match : Asphyxia This is a game played after the tournament for fun, and is the most interesting of the three. Asphyxia starts out in Aggressive mode. Black team: 6 (M.Lavoie, C.Gouge, R.Franceschini, J.McGauhey / Asphyxia) White team: 5 (Mark Schnitzius / Whistler) When this game started: Sat Aug 11 10:59:21 1990 8 . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . w . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . B . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Programmed first move ... Black> b2 a2:a1 8 . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . W . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 b . . . . . . . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h ... and Whistler starts FlipSymming. White> e7 e8 f8 g8 h7:h8 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . . . . . . . w 6 . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 B . . . . . . . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Asphyxia can't get to its opponent yet, so it uses Passive Mode ... Black> b3 c4 d5 e4 f3:g2 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . . . . . . . W 6 . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . b . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h ... and Whistler FlipSyms. White> g8 f8 e7 d6 c6:b7 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . # . . . . . . 6 . . w . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . B . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Aha! There it is! Black> e4 d5:e6 e5 d6 c5 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . # . . . . . . 6 . . W # # . . . 5 . . # b # . . . 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Whistler can't find a way to impose symmetry, so it runs ... White> c7 d8 e8 f7 g6:h5 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . # . . . . . . 6 . . . # # . w . 5 . . # B # . . # 4 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h ... and an aggressive Asphyxia chases. Here we go again! Black> e4 f5:g5 g4 f6 f4 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . # . . . . . . 6 . . . # # # W . 5 . . # . # b # # 4 . . . . . # # . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h White> f7 e8 d7 c6 b5:a4 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . # . . . . . . 6 . . . # # # . . 5 . w # . # B # # 4 # . . . . # # . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h Black> e4 d5 c6:d7 d5 b6 8 . . . . . . . # 7 . # . # . . . . 6 . # b # # # . . 5 . W # # # . # # 4 # . . . . # # . 3 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . # . 1 # . . . . . . . a b c d e f g h This is arguably a won position for White - just get blockers at a5 and b5 this turn, and f5 next turn, and the board is partitioned with Black getting the shaft - but YOU try to program a computer to recognize that in 60 secs! White> a6 a5 b4 c4 c3:d2 Black> b5 c4:d4 d3 b4 b3 White> b2 c2 d1 e2 f2:g1 Black> c3 c2 d1 e2:f3 f1 White> e3 e4 f5 g6 f7:e8 Black> e3 e4 f5 g6:h7 g7 White> f8 e7 d8 c8 b8:a8 8 # w . . # . . # 7 . # . # . . # # 6 . # . # # # B . 5 . . # # # . # # 4 # # . # . # # . 3 . # . # . # . . 2 . . . # . . # . 1 # . . . . # # . a b c d e f g h Whoops! Asphyxia is a bit TOO aggressive! Black> f7 e7 d8 c7:d8 c8 8 # W # # # . . # 7 . # b # . . # # 6 . # . # # # . . 5 . . # # # . # # 4 # # . # . # # . 3 . # . # . # . . 2 . . . # . . # . 1 # . . . . # # . a b c d e f g h Whistler has a winning move here! There are many ways to do the deed - I like a7 a6 b5:a6 a5 c6 - but Whistler doesn't see it! White> a7 a6 b5 c4 c3:b2 8 # . # # # . . # 7 . # B # . . # # 6 . # . # # # . . 5 . . # # # . # # 4 # # . # . # # . 3 . # w # . # . . 2 . # . # . . # . 1 # . . . . # # . a b c d e f g h Black> b8 a7 a6 a5 b5:c6 8 # . # # # . . # 7 . # . # . . # # 6 . # # # # # . . 5 . b # # # . # # 4 # # . # . # # . 3 . # W # . # . . 2 . # . # . . # . 1 # . . . . # # . a b c d e f g h White> c2 d1 e2 f2 g3:h4 8 # . # # # . . # 7 . # . # . . # # 6 . # # # # # . . 5 . B # # # . # # 4 # # . # . # # # 3 . # . # . # w . 2 . # . # . . # . 1 # . . . . # # . a b c d e f g h Always willing to cash in on a mistake, Asphyxia finishes off Whistler. Black> c4 c3 c2 d1 e2:f2 8 # . # # # . . # 7 . # . # . . # # 6 . # # # # # . . 5 . . # # # . # # 4 # # . # . # # # 3 . # . # . # W . 2 . # . # b # # . 1 # . . . . # # . a b c d e f g h ****************************************************************************** To join in the fun, send your name, home address, home and work phone numbers, and country preferences to Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com. ****************************************************************************** Up