 |
|
 CamelotDiscuss about Camelot game or find new opponents. You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
<< < 1 2 3 > >> 11. January 2009, 08:48:38 Subject: Annotated Game And another... Michael Nolan vs. Dave Blizzard 1999 11. January 2009, 08:47:37 Subject: Annotated Game Here's another annotated Camelot game. Michael Nolan vs. Dave Blizzard 1999 11. January 2009, 08:46:12 Subject: Annotated Game Here is an annotated game for inspection. Paul Yearout vs. Michael Nolan 2001 11. January 2009, 01:20:00 Subject: Re: 2008-2009 WCF Camelot World Championship Tournament  Fencer: That would be great! I feel like I am stumbling around at this game, and would love to read about strategy. I've been too busy to take a look at some of the better players' games so far. 10. January 2009, 20:50:16 Subject: Re: 2008-2009 WCF Camelot World Championship Tournament Fencer: That sounds great! 10. January 2009, 20:11:02 Subject: Re: 2008-2009 WCF Camelot World Championship Tournament  MrWCF: That's great.  It would be nice to see some annotated games when the championship is complete. I would like to post some articles about Camelot strategy.9. January 2009, 15:34:56 Is it possible to finish knight's charge on same field where it started? 9. January 2009, 15:08:06 Subject: 2008-2009 WCF Camelot World Championship Tournament Just in case anyone is interested........ MrWCF (Michael Nolan) just won the Candidates Match portion of the subject tournament, so will challenge Dan Troyka of Saline, Michigan, USA, the current World Champion, for the Camelot World Championship. It is my hope that during the next World Championship Tournament, many players from BrainKing submit entries. 9. January 2009, 00:15:01 Subject: Re: Camelot Ending Pedro Martínez: Can you outline your general plan to win as Black? 9. January 2009, 00:11:27 Subject: Re: Camelot Ending  MrWCF: I believe I would win the game as Black.  8. January 2009, 11:39:14 Subject: Camelot Ending Modified by MrWCF (14. January 2009, 17:16:46) Interesting position at the end of the Camelot game between chessik and SL-Bosse (archive #3599761: Camelot (chessik vs. SL-Bosse)). The players agreed to a draw. Do you think it's a draw? Or do you think it's a win for black? I'm pretty confident that I know the answer, but I would like to hear some opinions. 8. January 2009, 10:45:14 Subject: Re: Resignation DarwinKoala: You know, I think that's probably much more true for a game like chess than for a game like Camelot. In chess, for instance, much is to be learned from playing out a rook + 4 pawns vs. rook + 3 pawns ending, even if it's a clear win for the other player. In Camelot, though, nothing much can be learned from a position where, for instance, two pieces have a clear path to the opposing Castle. In cases like that, it's just a matter of tediously playing out all of the moves. 8. January 2009, 07:47:48 Subject: Re: Resignation But sometimes the losing player wants to practice or understand an end game. Of course, there is always horses for courses. Cheers, DK. 8. January 2009, 06:44:23 Subject: Re: Resignation AbigailII: In tournament chess, one method for punishing an opposing player who refused to resign was as follows..... You have a king, rook, bishop, and four pawns. Your opponent has only a king. He won't resign. Instead of mating with rook and king, you push all four pawns to promotion (queens). Now you have four queens, rook, and bishop, and a crowd starts to gather around your table, all snickering about why he hasn't resigned. Pretty cruel, I suppose, but it sure taught a tough lesson really fast. 8. January 2009, 03:17:53 Subject: Re: Resignation MrWCF: Oh yes, I've noticed it as well. It annoys me too. I've even been yelled at for resigning with the argument my opponent didn't get the satisfaction of "moving out the last stones". But there are other sites where it's worse. There's one site I play where resigning is actually punished (you get extra negative 'tie breaker points' making it harder to win a tournament if another player scored the same amount of match points). As for your point 3), I've heard that often. I don't buy it. Little skill is needed to play out a position where the situation of the opponent is hopeless. No tactical or strategical action will happen that will be useful to the losing player. If the losing player wants to learn something, he'd be better off starting a new game instead of continuing a game that's lobsided. 8. January 2009, 00:45:28 Subject: Resignation Modified by MrWCF (8. January 2009, 00:51:08) I would like to discuss something that appears to be commonplace behavior on BrainKing. Let me preface my remarks by admitting that I've only been playing on this site for a short time, and then, almost exclusively Camelot, so perhaps my observations are only a holiday phenomenon, or perhaps they don't apply to other games. Anyway, it is my impression that it is the norm here to continue playing the game, even when the outcome is obvious, and the cause is hopeless. Resignation in that case seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Let me be the first to point out a couple of things: 1.No player is forced to resign; obviously, each player has the absolute right to continue playing to the bitter end. 2.There are positions where a player seems to be hopelessly behind in material, yet has traps, tricks, attacks, or some other means of pulling a win or a draw from the jaws of defeat. 3.There is some benefit in continuing to play, and in so doing, learning from the technique displayed by the opponent as he or she moves on to victory. That said, my background for over 40 years has been tournament (over-the-board) chess where if you are playing against a player much higher rated than yourself, and your position is hopeless with absolutely no chance to even draw the game, you resign. I was just wondering if others have noticed this reluctance to resign in lost positions. Again, I'm not complaining--it's every player's right to continue the fight! 4. January 2009, 11:23:35 Subject: Re: Cam Fencer: I've added a list of differences between Cam and Camelot on the WCF website's Cam page (http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Cam.htm), and a link to those differences on the Cam Rules page (http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Cam_Rules.htm). The differences between Cam and Camelot are: 1. The Cam board has 67 squares. The Camelot board has 160 squares. 2. Each side in Cam has two Knights and five Men. Each side in Camelot has four Knights and ten Men. 3. The object of Cam is to get one piece into the opponent's Castle. The object of Camelot is to get two pieces into the opponent's Castle. 4. Victory in Cam also occurs if one side, even with only one remaining piece, captures all of the opposing pieces. In Camelot, if the side capturing all of the opposing pieces has only one remaining piece, the game is a draw. (Victory in Camelot by capture of all of the opposing pieces only occurs if the victorious side has two or more remaining pieces.) 5. Stalemate in Cam is impossible. Stalemate in Camelot is possible, and is a victory for the stalemating side if it has two or more pieces. 6. In Cam, if both sides have only one remaining piece, the game continues until one piece captures the other, or one piece enters the opposing Castle. In Camelot, if both sides have only one remaining piece, the game is a draw. 4. January 2009, 09:45:38 Subject: Re: Cam Fencer: That's a good idea. In addition to the official rules, I could add some sort of addendum that points out the differences. Thanks. 4. January 2009, 09:20:58 Subject: Re: Cam MrWCF: It is done. But it might be better if the WCF page shows just the difference between Camelot and Cam because it is not easy to find it comparing both full length rules. 4. January 2009, 08:20:43 Subject: Cam Fencer: AbigailII has reported that a Cam position where each side had one piece was declared a draw. I haven't inspected the position in question, but just in case, one vs. one is not a draw in Cam; in fact, it is always a win for one of the players, depending upon who has the opposition. 4. January 2009, 08:11:36 Subject: Re: 1-1 in Cam AbigailII: It is not a draw. See the World Camelot Federation Official Rules of Cam: http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Cam_Rules.htm I'll notify Fencer of this. 3. January 2009, 09:46:16 Subject: 1-1 in Cam I was quite surprised that in Cam, a position with both players having one piece left was declared a draw. Unlike Camelot where you need to occupy your opponents castle with two pieces, in Cam, only one is needed for a win. With both players having one piece left (and the pieces had passed each other), it would have made much sense if the game continued. 31. December 2008, 07:18:51 Subject: Re: Did I lose this game? Modified by MrWCF (31. December 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! 31. December 2008, 05:11:54 Subject: 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. December 2008, 04:59:31 Subject: 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. December 2008, 04:54:54 Subject: Re: Did I lose this game? DarwinKoala: Read the rules. You will probably lose the game in two moves. 31. December 2008, 04:52:00 Subject: Did I lose this game? I haven't got a message yet that I have lost this game: Camelot (dragonchild vs. DarwinKoala). I have already made an extra move with my single piece. Cheers, DK 30. December 2008, 22:49:30 Subject: Re: Variants  coan.net: yep, and it's here! :) 30. December 2008, 22:42:14 Subject: Re: Variants  Artful Dodger: 4 player version of Frog Finder would be VERY cool. But back on the subject of Camelot - since people on this site seem to love quick & fast games I would agree that a smaller board version "Cam" would be a good choice. 30. December 2008, 19:08:51 Subject: Re: Variants Fencer:I notice you said, "yet." :) wooo hoooo!  30. December 2008, 12:55:14 Subject: Re: Variants Fencer: Looking forward to it! 30. December 2008, 11:51:56 Subject: Re: Variants MrWCF: Very well, let's try Cam. BrainKing does not support 4 player games yet. 29. December 2008, 05:16:55 Subject: Re: Variants Fencer: Chivalry is simply Camelot with more pieces and a bigger board. Similarly, Cam is Camelot with fewer pieces and a smaller board. My invention, Camette, takes the smaller board and fewer pieces to an extreme. All three variants are fun to play, but from personal experience, I think Chivalry is a bit too crowded, and Camette is a bit too simple. So my vote for a Camelot-like variant would be for Cam. That said..... In my opinion, by far the best Camelot variant is Grand Camelot. Grand Camelot is Camelot for four players (two teams of two players, each). Camelot, as you probably know by now, is extremely tactical, and just occasionally strategic. Grand Camelot is a very enjoyable, relatively even blend of tactics and strategy. Don't get me wrong--I love Camelot. But I also love Grand Camelot--it's a blast to play. 28. December 2008, 20:28:20 Subject: Variants I have been asked to add some Camelot variants to the site but I am not sure which of them would be good candidates. Any suggestions? (Chivalry, Cam, Camette, ...) 28. December 2008, 11:49:04 Subject: Knight's Charge is NEVER mandatory rod03801, Pedro Martinez, and Ceiter have done a great job of discussing the Knight's Charge, so I'll just add a few words. The Knight's Charge is never mandatory. However, if one of your pieces is in position to Jump one of your opponent's pieces, you must make a capture sometime during that move. (The one exception is when you have Jumped into your own Castle. Even if there is an available Jump somewhere, you must leave your Castle immediately.) Anyway, if a Jump is available, you can accomplish the mandatory capture either by the Jump, itself, or, if one is available, by a Knight's Charge. When a Jump is available, and you start your Knight Cantering, you must end up capturing with that Knight (i.e., by a Knight's Charge). So, when a Jump is available, a Knight is not allowed to Canter and then stop its move before Jumping. I hope that's clear--I'll be happy to elaborate further, if necessary. 28. December 2008, 11:35:28 Subject: Re: Draw rule Jaak: Yes, it is a draw if both player have one piece left, even if one piece can capture the other. The reason is that the object of the game is to get two pieces into the opponent's castle. The reason that the capturing of all of the opponent's pieces while having two or more of your own pieces left is defined as a win is simply because those two pieces can proceed unhindered into the oponent's castle. This definition avoids the silly process of moving pieces move after move while your opponent just sits there. However, one piece vs. zero pieces is a draw, not a win, because it is not possible to castle two pieces if you only have one. 28. December 2008, 11:14:14 Subject: Camelot Hello, all. I am the founder of the World Camelot Federation and the owner of the WCF website. Much to my pleasure, I have been allowed to be a moderator of this discussion forum, so I will be happy and honored to answer any questions you have about the wonderful game of Camelot. Michael Nolan MrWCF michael@worldcamelotfederation.com 14. December 2008, 16:38:11 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Fencer: GREAT addition to the site. I think I'm going to like this game a lot. 14. December 2008, 15:54:04 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Pedro Martínez: Thanks for your responses, I am glad that I didn't have to explore the positions myself. Actually, the owner of Camelot Federation website should be back from holidays soon, so I hope that he will add some clarifications as well. 14. December 2008, 15:36:17 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Pedro Martínez: Good. Honestly, when the site has made an automatic move for me in this game, I haven't checked it. It bothered me to think that it might not let me choose, if there were more than one option.  14. December 2008, 12:52:41 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? rod03801: He had two pieces to choose from. Knight at C9 and Knight at J6. If he clicked the C9 Knight, BK would automatically move the Knight to C11 and remove the black Knight at C10. But Ceiter chose to move the J6 Knight. BK recognized that because of the position of the C9 Knight, it is mandatory for the J6 Knight to make a knight's charge and automatically moved the J6 Knight to H10. From there, Ceiter could choose the path, going either h10xj12xl12 or h10xf12. 14. December 2008, 01:57:02 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Pedro Martínez: I guess I assumed the site automatically took his piece to where it ended up. I haven't played many games of it yet. Once he clicked on that Knight, did he physically click each of those jumps? Did BK "auto" move him just as far as where he could make a choice of which opponents piece to attack? (where he had the choice of #2 or #3 in your list of options, after H10) I guess it really has nothing to do with his original question. I am just curious. I'm sure I will find out on my own, when I run into the situation myself at some point. 13. December 2008, 23:51:47 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Pedro Martínez: Ohhhh, of course. Thanks, that explains it. 13. December 2008, 23:05:56 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Modified by Pedro Martínez (13. December 2008, 23:08:22) Ceiter: It's not a bug at all. See your Knight at C9? That's why you were not allowed to land anywhere else but at H10 with your J6 Knight. In your situation, your only choices were: 13. c9xc11 13. j6-h8-f8-h10xj12xl12 13. j6-h8-f8-h10xf12 13. December 2008, 13:57:30 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Ceiter: Actually, looking at your game again. I'm even more confused. LOL. I have had a few more sips of coffee, and am more awake now. I misunderstood your starting situation. I was thinking it was your opponent's piece at I7. I see now it was your own piece. Seems definitely like a bug then. I still say that BK shouldn't automatically make the forced moves for us in this game, especially when there are alternate routes. 13. December 2008, 13:53:02 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Ceiter: I see what you are saying. After you jumped I7, your piece had 3 different routes it could have gone to continue it's forced jumping. Your 2 other choices would not have put you in danger, at the end. BK forced you into the one bad choice. It seems like it shouldn't make an "automatic" move for players when there are different routes you can take. The rules even say that you don't need to make the "longest" route. And in this game, it seems like there are lots of times that there are different routes your pieces can make in forced situations. 13. December 2008, 13:43:38 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Modified by Ceiter (13. December 2008, 13:44:15) rod03801: I understand that. The part that seems wrong is that it forced me to go next to an opponent's piece when I didn't need to. I was not next to an opponent's piece at the start of the turn. I think it would have let me make a normal move with another piece, but I already moved so I can't be sure about that. The rules Fencer first linked to when the game was released (http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Camelot_Rules.htm) specifically say that "A Knight is never obliged to make a Knight's Charge." 13. December 2008, 13:38:11 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Ceiter: According to the rules: "Just like in checkers, jumping opponent's pieces is mandatory. It means that if a player's piece stands next to an opponent's piece and can jump it, it is forced to do it and it must continue jumping as long as it can." It is near the bottom of the page, under "Other important rules" 13. December 2008, 11:28:16 Subject: Re: Knights charge mandatory? Pedro Martínez: I think I may have found a bug in BrainKing, then. See this position: Camelot (Ceiter vs. Ronin) When I clicked on the knight at J6, the next three jumps were automatic; it took my straight to H10, where I was forced to capture. I could have stopped after one or two jumps and never been in position to capture, so shouldn't that have been allowed? Is it a bug or do I misunderstand the rules? << < 1 2 3 > >> |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |