playBunny: Easiest game in the world, you don't have to know anything to play

playBunny:
Rule 1: Pedantic mathematicians have to make a saving throw each turn to avoid being sucked into a vortex.

Rule 2: When there are no pedantic mathematicians left alive the game ends and we go to the pub for a drink.

grenv:

WhiteTower: Yes, the Earth is spherical in the relevant sense. But the point is that the playing area of the game called "Sphere" Froglet is not equivalent to a sphere. Look at a map of the Earth. Yes, the east and west edges should be joined together, but not the north and south edges. Or are you really suggesting that Greenland is adjacent to Antarctica?

Or look at it another way. Start with a rectangular piece of paper, and think of it as representing the board in the standard Froglet game. Now the rules for "Sphere" Froglet tell us that the left and right edges should be joined, and the top and bottom edges should be joined. So take the paper and first join the left and right edges. We now have a cylindrical tube. Then if we join the top and bottom edges (this may require the paper to be a bit stretchy) we have something in the shape of a doughnut, which is called a torus. The name is not what's important here, and in my view Doughnut Froglet would be as good a name as Torus Froglet. The point is that it is in no way equivalent to a sphere, and hence "Sphere" Froglet is a misnomer.

alanback: You and others have used the phrase "mathematical correctness" (or "mathematically correct") as if the word "mathematical" somehow means that correctness is of no importance. It seems to me that when we have a choice between correctness and incorrectness, we should choose correctness. Why should it matter whether it's mathematical, topological, topographical, geographical, geological, biological, anthropological, etymological, or entomological?

KotDB: You misunderstand me. I am as mathematically pedantic as anyone, and I have the BS in math to prove it. I believe strongly in using the right term, especially when the wrong term is misleading. As you have already pointed out, some players might be misled into thinking that the north and south poles are adjacent to each other!

The only thing that disturbed me in the string of messages was that Luke made it clear he did not care at all about the name of the game as a feature of BrainKing, discussion of which is the sole purpose of this message board. He only wanted us to call a torus a torus for the sake of mathematical purity. While mathematical purity matters much to him (and to you and me), it has nothing to do with the purpose of this board!

KotDB: "Why should it matter whether it's mathematical, topological, topographical, geographical, geological, biological, anthropological, etymological, or entomological?"



That's graphic in its logic even if only slightly matic.

alanback: Ah, sorry to have misunderstood you. Perhaps you're right about the offtopicness of this thread; discussion of the "Sphere" Froglet name really belongs in the bug tracker rather than the feature requests board.

We understate our case, though, if we say it's only "for the sake of mathematical purity". It's as if we called a butterfly a giraffe and claimed that it didn't matter because the distinction was only zoological.

Well, perhaps more like calling a giraffe a biped.

I'm glad you guys cleared it up, i was beginning to really think the north and south poles were adjacent.

alanback: To clarify a misunderstanding: I care about the name of the game and would like to see it changed. I discussed this right after the game was introduced but Fencer sayed he didn't want to change it. Ok, for me this ends the discussion about the name of the brainking feature.

It doesn't end the discussion about which name is correct. In my post I only wanted to correct a mathematical error (that a sphere and a torus are equivalent), and btw, KotDB has described this perfectly. Last time I was too lazy to type a long explanation.

I hope this is now really my last post on this subject.

Here's the pitch!

And all this time I had thought the earth was an oblate spheriod.

There's a flag on this sentence. The referees are confering. They've decided. Here's the ruling:
That does not constitute a saving throw. Walter is sucked into the Vortex and out of the game.

Oh well, I tried. At least I have a head start to the pub while you guys duke it out. :) Fun game. How'd you think it up so fast?

Walter:

playBunny: I'll quaff a few. Maybe it'll help for the post game discussion. My dictionary doesn't have pendantic in it, so I'll have to get the big one out.

Walter Montego: Pendantic: Like, or in the manner of, a pendant; swinging. Often mistaken for "Pedantic" by myopic misanthropes

In watching a "dark" game such as Small Espionage, the pieces are obviously hidden from observers while the game is in progress. But it wouldn't be giving anything away to have the two players differentiated, perhaps by colouring the question marks differently. An observer could then at least tell who has the most pieces.

playBunny: Before seeing it I was sure that this link was about my game with JIMMYLOVESNirvana...

Andre: It's an internationally important game and many would like to follow its progress.

Andre Faria: I always said you were special!

alanback: The little dictionary does indeed have pedantic in it. The extra "n" makes a big difference. You're all making sense now, but I'm not sure about the reference to nearsighted mankind haters? I like you just fine. Yep, a cold draft cures what ails. Perhaps I'll survive to the knockout round yet.

As I sit contemplating the nature of beer foam and how it adheres to one's glass I have to wonder why Fencer wouldn't just rename the game and be done with it? The torus side has convinced me of the correctness of their point of view, but I'm against the display of intelligence in a pedantic way.

There's a flag on the play. The refs are reviewing the post and just might have Walter pulled out of the vortex. Stay tuned after the commercial break.

Walter Montego: No offense meant, old chum, just playing. Maybe a good compromise would be "Taurus Froglet" with the question whether the reference is astrological or vehicular left intentionally vague. Remember, a good compromise leaves all sides unhappy . . .

playBunny: Dark Chess is one such game too. There's no way to let the board be seen without it ruining the game. I've requested in the past that after a game is over that all three views of the game be shown. As it is now you see the whole board after the game is over and sometimes the moves make no sense and it can be hard to understand what someone was planning by making what is obviously a poor move until you realize that they couldn't see the whole board.

Walter: That's a good point. I think the game state should unfold as the game unfolds (this should apply to the cube in Backgammon, too) .. but a further board revealing the final position would be a nice addition.

ps. A fine move. Congrats at getting back out of the Vortex.

alanback: No offense taken. As I have the smileys shut off I had to look up the number four one to see that you were winking when you typed that. So you went down the vortex too, I see? Pull up a chair, what do want the barman to pour you, it's on me. Yes, that'd be an appropriate name. That's an interesting theory of compromise, but it has a ring of truth to it. If someone likes the compromise, they got the better of it. :)

Walter Montego: For "Dark chess" would be nice to allow to observers see pieces, which both opponents see anyway.

andreas: I think the ability to have that could give information to the players.
Imagine an empty board with a white queen on a1 and a black rook on b2. The rook can obviously see itself and the queen can see the rook, but if you were to allow outside observers to see that the rook is visible to both players, then black could potentially become aware that her rook is under attack by a piece, when she normally wouldn't know this.
Obviously, there are other ways to deal with this (only show pieces which are mutually attacking each other, more complex yadda-yaddas, etc), but I really don't see how that would make watching an in-progress dark chess game any more exciting or worthwhile.

andreas: plus... if a third person can see the pieces, then it would be easy for a cheater to create another account and see what is going on... thus defeating dark chess.

FriendJosh: You don't need a second account to view games and other pages, you can simply login as a guest. I sometimes do that to check my games list without fully logging in.

playBunny: how can you check you game list without logging in?

jurek FriendJosh: But imagine a home version with three monitors hooked to one computer. The two people playing could face each other across the table with a monitor in front of each of them back to back. The third monitor could be placed away from them or in another room. The computer wouldn't play Dark Chess, it would just keep track of the game as is done on this site. Each player would have his view on his screen. The third monitor could show the player's views from either side and also the whole game at once. I'll buy this program if someone has it, or please direct me to a place that gives it away. Pythagoras said he might create one. Dark Chess would be lots of fun played live. Speed Dark Chess would be real crazy too.

Eriisa: Profile / Started games.

Fencer: LOL, sounds easier to just log in and see the front page!

Eriisa: I think so.

Fencer: It's a mini-cloak. (All the cloaked folk say "Yeah!")

It's also the action of an unfinished program that reads the games list for me...

Walter Montego: I think this is already possible with BrainKing. Two players just create user accounts, login and play the game here in a normal way. Observers can install cameras behind both players or run around to see how the game proceeds

andreas: I didn't say there wasn't others way to do it, but that's not a very practical way and it'd cost a lot of money to do it. You could get by with one monitor if you shut the screen between moves.

As for logging on to the game site at the same time and playing, I tried this with my brother on IYT a couple years ago. It wasn't as good as I'd hoped, but it does work. It also means you need internet service and two accounts on a game site that has Dark Chess. And kibitzers still can't follow the game in progress.

I'll just keep asking anyone that can program if they can do it. Eventually someone will, or I'll have to learn how to program it and do it myself. Such a set up would have other uses besides the playing of Dark Chess. I'd be surprised if roll playing games aren't done this way. I've seen arcades that have car racing games hooked together in a similiar manner.

When I go into a fellowship and look at the tournaments to sign up for, it only gives the name of the fellowship for the tournament name instead of what kind og game the tournament is for.

It would be nice to know what game it is/they are please?

Czuch Chuckers: The BIG BOSS when they create the tournament can name it just like any other tournament. It might be easier to get them to just start naming the tournaments instead of just keeping the default name.

BIG BAD WOLF: Ahhhh,,,, thats only a default and can be changed, duhhhhh! LOL, my bad, thanks for the help!

Walter Montego: That would be an interesting program to write. But if some one writes it they should make it so it will work with BrainKing. The game would keep track of all moves so the viwer screen is possible but will also report back to BrainKing the moves the players make for the sake of the rest of us.

mctrivia: I'm not sure that I understand your use of it. I was thinking of a stand alone set up that would not need the internet to work. Two people, two monitors, and a computer with the program.

mctrivia: Even something as putting two lap tops back to back, or a lap top and CRT and just hooking them to a computer.

i see u talking about 2 pple 2 monitors 2 pc .. i tell u true i "watch" pple when i play regular checkers and if i have suspect you bet i will report(means that i can see right away if someone use a program ) :)

We have many times one or more pieces (broken or not) on the bar, for these type games. I need to see how many broken pieces on my side and on my opponents' side. This is important and can be code for different colors of pieces or simply with warn message on the top of the game page.

TC: By which I take it you mean pieces that have been hit and sent back.

I second this request, it is useful to know which are the pieces still to be entered into the game and which are to be re-entered.

TC: I also agree, in Race and Crowded it can sometimes be critically important whether the pieces on the bar have remained there since the start of the game, or were sent there during play. This is because those that were sent back must re-enter before another piece can be moved, which is not the case with those that have been on the bar since the beginning.

there it could be a way to reconnaise right away a game that is a single elimination game ? maybe pple that have lots of games wouldn't notice (i have thousand games on) and pbly will change our way to play thse games with one shot only :)

francescolr: How would you highlight it?

Fencer: yes or make it colorful so i could notice that is not a "normal" game but a game wich if i lose i will go out :( (hope not happens often lol ) :)

What's this Eternal Rook membership level that francescolr was blessed with? :)

I just got a message that I am not the tournement winner, is this an automated message and a new feature?