On Feb 6, 2:47 pm, "markste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <markste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:13 am, nickobe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>
>
> > Possible refinement of the idea I gave above, which does away with the
> > extra board. Haven't thought this through, but here it is anyway.
>
> > Any time after the pattern has been proposed but before the game is
> > over, the player who did not propose the pattern may stop the game,
> > and fill in the rest of the board by himself. If by so doing he
> > demonstrates that the given pattern is not YMMV, he instantly wins.
> > If he fills in the rest of board but fails to demonstrate that the
> > pattern is not YMMV, he instantly loses.
>
> Nick, that would be the ideal game in a parallel universe where this
> group is called rec.games.kludge. Here's what I'd like to see in your
> next game: Interesting new principle embodied in a minimal set of
> rules. No draws or ties. Equal goals. No cliche elements like the
> Checkers jump, the n-in-a-row winning condition, or a board full of
> pawns racing to the other side. I guess that last condition was
> covered by "interesting new principal". I'm 100 percent confident you
> can do it if you want to. If it takes ten years it'll be worth the
> wait, but I'm sure it wouldn't take you nearly that long.
heh. I agree it's awkward. My only defense is that sometimes kludges
lead to not-kludges. I prefer to think of it as a work in progress
rather than a failure!
|
