Thanks for the reply. I've just taken a look at two finished games, one white one black, it turns out that the numbering/lettering for the notation is inverse so, I guess the players do get their individual viewpoint(?!).

Do you know I really dont know! I think Fencer would have to answer that. I would guess both players see the board from the same angle?

When we play games 'live' the players sit on opposite sides of the board. Naturally in games such as chess with an oriented board the players each have their own view of the board even in online play but how about tablut? Do both players have the same view of the board? When playing with a physical board I'm sure there's a psychological element in the choice of playing towards the opponent or towards home, or even to the side.

Sorry, ughaibu, I dont know the game shogi. I'll have to look that one up.

As far as I know, and can see, there is no way for black to force a draw. But I still dont see that white has the advantage because of this! Or maybe its just that I like the challenge of black! But to my thinking, in any game, if I play white and my king escapes then that is lucky. It is a mistake made by black.

The only rule I'm not keen on is one I have stated before. When white is surrounded at the throne on three sides (with the throne being on the fourth), if white has an escape OVER the throne it should be allowed!

Harley: thanks for the interesting reply. It seems to me that black has no equivalent way to force a draw by repetition(?) and thus it contravenes the spirit of the game for white to have that advantage. As a parallel example, in shogi a draw by voluntary repetition is fine but if one side forces the other to accept the draw by continually checking it is a loss for the checking side. I dont know how much accurate information is available about how tablut type games were played but as they existed for several hundred years I think it's reasonable to assume that they had fully satisfactory rules. I'm not complaining just philosophising.

Yes, white can force a draw and its very frustrating!! But it can be done.

I haven't really looked at percentages, but personally I DO find it easier to play as black. But some people swear white has the advantage.

If whites pieces are surrounded then black would have to move one piece to allow white to make the final move, then black could move in and take the final piece. Many player as white keep a 'stray' piece along the side. As black closes in on the king, white positions itself around the king so black cannot take the final piece for a win.
So begins a 'cat and mouse' with the stray piece. Once this is captured white is forced to move a piece covering the king, and black wins.
Its really just a way for white to draw out the game, and maybe some vague hope that black will make a mistake and move a piece to capture the stray that will enable their king to escape.

I think it's probably too easy for white to force a draw by perpetual threat but that's just my impression. How have the results of games so far played worked out in percentages white/black wins/draws? What is the situation if white's pieces are surrounded such that none can move but the blacks are not adjacent to the king on all four sides? Do you class this as a draw? I think in the spirit of the game this should be a black win.

Thanks

1) The throne can be used only to capture the king, not the "normal" pieces.
2) Yes, it should be considered as a draw but this site does not support a perpetual check detection yet. What you can do in such situation is to send a message to me and I will set a draw manually.

There are two points that are not clear from the rules. Firstly does the throne only function as a capturing piece if it is the king being captured or can pieces belonging to either side be captured by one opposing piece if they are positioned next to the throne? Second what happens if white can repeatedly threaten to move the king to the edge and black has only one piece that can block ie a forced repetition somewhat similar to perpetual check, in this case does the white side have to vary in order to avoid forcing the repetition or is the game considered drawn?

thanks Harley, for caring ... :")

indeed my opponent himself offered to resign, after reviewing the rules ...
I'd like to credit him by naming a true sportsman, e.g. 'Nytedream' ... :)

hope Fencer will be able to spare a moment to check the board-logic

it seems to be a problem of implemeting the throne-square specials properly ...

thanks in advance and also again to my fair opponent ! ~*~

Maybe your opponenet would be good enough to resign the game if you've won? Or... capture all the other pieces so the king cannot move at all.

These are just suggestions until Fencer gets around to sorting it for you. Obviously there is a problem within the game that needs attention.

Really sorry about that on the other board, I had thought you were discussing a tablut game for its merit, not a specific problem :o(

a message I had put to the main-board ...

as Harley pointed out, it is a private game, only visible for
the players, hadn't know that - as it was not created by me ...

I do not ask for help how to play. but I would appreciate
if Fencer could check the game for a proper function ...


danoschek
Tablut Glitch ?
7. April 2003, 15:15:10

I'm new to this game.

The rules give following conditions for a black win:
_________________________________________________

Mercenaries surround the king from all four sides and capture him.
The second possibility is that mercenaries surround the king
from three sides and the throne stands on the fourth side
(since nobody, including the king, cannot move to the throne).
The black player wins the game.
_____________________________________________

here's my game - now I desperately try to surround the king from 8 sides :P
but maybe an expert cAn help before I bite into my keyboard ;)

http://www.brainking.com/game/ShowGame?g=53389

and good afternoon, europe - good morning, america ! b4 eye 4get :D ... ~*~
'

:o) I'm not saying you shouldn't have won Whisperz!! It was a perfectly valid win which I would have done myself in your position.
I just think the rules could be improved upon by allowing white to make a legal move through the centre square to avoid capture.

I must admit that I did check the rules to make sure I would get a win with the move but I probably concur that white should have been able to play the move through the centre circle and out the other side [mind you, I wouldn't have made the move if it wasn't going to win :)]

It happened! Congrats to Whisperz, you won fair and square.. but Fencer, have a look at game 53378, I still had a legal move for my king to make. Maybe the rules should be revised?

Fencer, it states in the rules that if the king is surrounded on 3 sides, and the thrown is on the fourth side, black wins.
But what if the king has an opening behind him, over the throne and to safety? Is that fair? Its still a legal move, and I think black should have to block that exit for the king too. Just a thought! I'm in a similar position now, and I may lose this game in these circumstances.

You could also consider that a situation might exist, although extremely unlikely and would require some poor play on white's behalf, where black could also still have pieces but no valid moves. In chess, this position (stalemate through lack of legal moves) is an end game strategy which can be pursued, but against an experienced opponent is rarely successful.

Ok, but if white didn't move it's king e5-e6, black would have captured it next move. Then, when black captured the last white piece except the king, white had no legal moves. The rules do not mention stalemate (which this seems to be, as mentioned before), and i have not really played enough of this to know what should happen in this situation.

To be pedantic, the rules, as you say, dictate that "the (black) mercenaries surround the King". In the game in question the King moved into the position where it was surrounded by black pieces (plus centre) but the word "surround" indicates positive action on the part of black which clearly did not happen on the immediately preceeding move.

This is similar to a white (for instance) piece being placed between two black pieces. In this case the white piece is not removed from the board because neither black piece put it into that situation. If this is the case the rules in both circumstances are consistent.

It is interesting to note that had black not captured the last white soldier a win would eventually have been possible and the white piece would not have been able to capture any more black pieces (as the King cannot be used in the capturing move - a clarification which should probably be added to the rules).

It says in the rules:

"...The second possibility is that mercenaries surround the king from three sides and the throne stands on the fourth side (since nobody, including the king, cannot move to the throne). The black player wins the game."

So the game should have ended, and the white player should not have had to resign, correct?

but in this game the king is surrounded? why does white not lose here

I have only just started playing my first game of this and was wondering if there might be a stalemate situation if one player still had pieces but was unable to make a legal move.

I suspect that the only other way that a piece may stay on the board is if it is trapped between two opposing pieces on the edge of the board and a third piece moves to stop its movement away from the edge or a group of 4 (or more) pieces in a ectangular (square being on form thereof) cluster are trapped on all sides.

Stalemate?

game #2, looks like it's all over for aaarghhh, but the game is still 'live'... what do you think fencer (or anybody else)?

sunnyday: My parents bought it 20 years ago :-)

Fencer, where did you find this book of wonders???

can someone come up with an idea as to how to play it? for black at least. white doesn't seem to have it very hard

Call it as you want :-)

You're so right!! We say a lot of things differently! It feels more natural to me to say it as 'tab-loo', I might stick with that if it doesn't offend anyone!

hrlqns: it doesnt sound strange, it is a typical pronunciation in my language ;-) tablut has a viking origin, thats way i chose a german pronunciation which is similar to pronunciation in czech. you can say "tabloo" if you want, english has its modification for everything, because english has very different pronunciation to other languages...

stromovous.. so you'd say the 'ut' like the end of 'put'? Sounds strange! It would sound much nicer said as 'tabloo', silent 't'!!!
Thanks, saves me wondering!!!

hrlqns: Just "tablut" with "a" like in the english word "class" and with "u" like in the english word "put".

Does anyone know how you pronounce Tablut? Is it "tab - loo" or "tay - blue", or even "tab - loot"?

Yes, you can move over. It doesn't work? What is the game ID?

Hey Fencer! The rules now say you CAN move over the centre square! Is that right?! Have you changed them? Because in the game I played I couldn't move over it to the other side...

The rules will be updated ASAP :-)

OK, OK, I didn't read the rules well enough!! LOL!! My own fault, I'll chalk it up to experience!!!

I'll add it to rules although I agree with Kevin :-)

yeah but not stated!! I found out the hard way!!

I think that is implied! :-)

In the rules it says once a king has left his throne no piece may occupy that spot.
What the rules DON'T say is that no piece may even pass over the centre square!! :o(

Is it? That's good :-) I've got a book of more ancient games so I'll try to implement the ones which are interesting.

What a great game!