Forum www.kropki.legion.pl Strona Główna www.kropki.legion.pl
Forum gry w kropki -
KLIKNIJ I ZAGRAJ W KROPKI ON-LINE
Zasady gry

 FAQFAQ   SzukajSzukaj   UżytkownicyUżytkownicy   GrupyGrupy   RejestracjaRejestracja 
 ProfilProfil   Zaloguj się, by sprawdzić wiadomościZaloguj się, by sprawdzić wiadomości   ZalogujZaloguj 

Sport Dots News
Idź do strony Poprzedna  1, 2
 
Napisz nowy temat   Odpowiedz do tematu    Forum www.kropki.legion.pl Strona Główna -> Zasady i nauka gry
Zobacz poprzedni temat :: Zobacz następny temat  
Autor Wiadomość
zagram_org



Dołączył: 04 Lut 2013
Posty: 18

PostWysłany: Czw Gru 14, 2017 9:57 am    Temat postu: Odpowiedz z cytatem

Volunteer napisał:
zagram_org napisał:
The fact that these are territory rules follows from this sentence


Volunteer napisał:
under the game for the territory we understand different things


And this is so. Before the filling of the whole field and, accordingly, with the creation of traps in the Soviet Union and in Russia they played until the middle of the 2000s. Many amateurs are playing now. But nobody calls it a game for the territory.

Well the names are not important Smile
If the players do not play until the board is full, but rather agree to finish when there is nothing to catch, then they effectively play with the 'stop buton' rule. And this is not a territory game. From what we see on Kropkoliga, it's difficult to say for sure what was the case. The rules allowed territory play. On the pictures we do not see it. But there are only few pictures...

Volunteer napisał:

zagram_org napisał:
Counting territory, like done on szkrab or zagram, is just for convenience


But what you call simple convenience, from our point of view, is precisely the main sign of the game for the territory.

The main sign of the game for the territory is that we really play until the board is full -- well, for convenience we do not, but we count points just as we did play until the end.

Volunteer napisał:

zagram_org napisał:
It always simulates the result that would occur when playing until the board is full


Not always. If you finish the game ahead of time, when there is a lot of empty space on the field (by the rules players can do it anytime), you fix the result only for the part of the field that is currently full. This does not mean that if the game was continued, the result would remain the same, because the final score will depend on how players place the dots on still free areas of the field. Counting the points, the system can not know this.

Of course. That's why the players have to agree that they count points, and typically they do it when there's really nothing to do.
http://eidokropki.reaktywni.pl/index.phtml?lang=en#url:zagram331597:0,441
http://eidokropki.reaktywni.pl/index.phtml?lang=en#url:zagram331173:0,571

Volunteer napisał:

zagram_org napisał:
It might be that the guys in Kropkoliga did not realise fully the consequences of their own rules, but someday they would see that if you have to play until the end, it's good to have some territory


That's when it happens, then I'll say that the guys are playing for the territory. For the time being, I see the same "Soviet classics" in the photos of their games, which I write about in the article. If something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then this duck is. And it does not matter that it really is a dog, but does not know about it Smile

It might be, but we do not know.
Even if so, still, at some point they would realise that and then they would either follow their own rules with all their consequences (i.e., territory play), or they would adopt some kind of 'stop button'.

Volunteer napisał:

zagram_org napisał:
The Russian rules have 'stop' possibility, and this disables territory play


Only in your understanding. For decades we played without a landing rule ("stop"), some are still playing, but nobody calls it a game for the territory, as I said above.

You are writing about something else, that no stop does not imply territory play Wink
But again, by the duck principle, if you formally play without "stop" but agree to stop when there's nothing to catch you effectively play with the stop rule.
Powrót do góry
 
 
senny_mojrzesz



Dołączył: 04 Lis 2005
Posty: 1360
Skąd: Legionowo,Londyn

PostWysłany: Czw Gru 14, 2017 1:01 pm    Temat postu: Odpowiedz z cytatem

For territory and without territory this was just interpretation and new names which started on zagram.org.

Nothing change in the rules.
Shortcut counting we just started using in szkrab
But we change nothing really in the game.

About kropkoliga screens. We don't know the rule which can make a big differend about closing dots.
This screen shows you nothing and you calling that "clear proof".

And this "conversation started" because you wrote something like this.

And we was just tried to explain you how it was in history.

From this screen in the link
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ei1kiji6bgi21ms/Screenshot_20171213-220034.png?dl=0
How you possibly can know which rules about closing dots was used

We don't know yet which rules about closing dots was first in Poland
And we don't know yet when first game was played.

And possible we will never know, but who knows
Powrót do góry
 
 
Volunteer



Dołączył: 16 Lis 2017
Posty: 16
Skąd: Russia

PostWysłany: Czw Gru 14, 2017 3:00 pm    Temat postu: Odpowiedz z cytatem

senny_mojrzesz napisał:
This screen shows you nothing and you calling that "clear proof". And this "conversation started" because you wrote something like this


I do not know what is the reason, perhaps in a double translation from English, but now you are just fighting with windmills.

"Soviet classics" is: the game until the free points of the field run out or until the players themselves decide that the result is obvious, an arbitrary encirclement trajectory, the absence of a landing rule ("stop"), the determination of the result by counting the surrounded dots only.

The rules of "Kropkoliga": "Gra kończy się z chwilą zapełnienia całej kartki, lub do momentu gdy jeden z graczy się podda, albo obaj się zgodzą skończyć grę i podliczyć punkty... Punkty otrzymuje się za każdą otoczoną kropkę przeciwnika, oraz traci za otoczone własne kropki".

Now show me the difference and explain what you did not like. The word "Soviet"?
Powrót do góry
 
 
Volunteer



Dołączył: 16 Lis 2017
Posty: 16
Skąd: Russia

PostWysłany: Czw Gru 14, 2017 4:00 pm    Temat postu: Odpowiedz z cytatem

zagram_org napisał:
Well the names are not important


The names do not matter, yes. But in this case it's not the name but the difference in approaches.

If you read the first part of the "History", which describes the origin of dots from Go, you can understand what is the difference.

A real game for the territory is Go. The most fully developed standard. The capture of the stones there plays a supporting role, the players receive most of the points for control of the territory. Anyone who has established such control can skip moves, so the game before filling the field and creating traps does not make sense. Dots appeared as a variation of Go and evolved as its antipode. The ultimate result of this evolution at the moment are the Russian rules, under which the territory does not make sense at all. During the development of the game several attempts have been made in one form or another to place the result of the game in dependence on the encircled territory. They were in the USSR, and in the post-Soviet countries, and in the Czech Republic, and in Poland. Good or bad is another matter. In my opinion, it's not good, because in any case it will be a surrogate for Go. Dots only makes sense as an antipode to Go, otherwise they turn into a parody of Go.

You are trying to find signs of game for territory where they are, from our point of view, not. The game before the filling of the field and the creation of traps is not a game for territory, it is a specific method of playing for capturing dots. The game for the territory appears only where the surrounded area itself gives points, regardless of the surrounding game chips (stones, dots - it does not matter). And in this sense, shortcut a la Szkrab is a step towards game for territory, because it allows under certain conditions to get points for surrounded empty spaces.

In the course of the discussion, I repeated many times the same thing: only scoring. If the number of points depends on the surrounding area (no matter how exactly it is counted), then this game is for territory. If the number of points depends only on the surrounded dots, then this is a game without territory. This is our position, with which you are not obligated to agree. As well as we are with yours.
Powrót do góry
 
 
zagram_org



Dołączył: 04 Lut 2013
Posty: 18

PostWysłany: Czw Gru 14, 2017 11:59 pm    Temat postu: Odpowiedz z cytatem

Volunteer napisał:
"Soviet classics" is: the game until the free points of the field run out or until the players themselves decide that the result is obvious, an arbitrary encirclement trajectory, the absence of a landing rule ("stop"), the determination of the result by counting the surrounded dots only.

Well I didn't know that, and in that case, there is no major difference between Soviet classics and Kropkoliga.

Volunteer napisał:
You are trying to find signs of game for territory where they are, from our point of view, not. The game before the filling of the field and the creation of traps is not a game for territory, it is a specific method of playing for capturing dots. The game for the territory appears only where the surrounded area itself gives points, regardless of the surrounding game chips (stones, dots - it does not matter). And in this sense, shortcut a la Szkrab is a step towards game for territory, because it allows under certain conditions to get points for surrounded empty spaces.

Then your definition of 'territory rules' is different than ours, but I can agree with your point of view.

Volunteer napisał:

In the course of the discussion, I repeated many times the same thing: only scoring. If the number of points depends on the surrounding area (no matter how exactly it is counted), then this game is for territory. If the number of points depends only on the surrounded dots, then this is a game without territory. This is our position, with which you are not obligated to agree. As well as we are with yours.


OK, but just note that according to your definition there are no territory rules on zagram or szkrab. What we have on zagram (and had on szkrab), is 'a step towards game for territory', as you wrote, but not real territory rules.

BTW, we had a discussion whether 'pass' should be allowed and whether we want real territory rules (in the sense of your definition, which now I understand as: pass is allowed, territory is scored after both players pass, like in Go), but there was a strong opposition against the real territory rules.
Powrót do góry
 
 
Volunteer



Dołączył: 16 Lis 2017
Posty: 16
Skąd: Russia

PostWysłany: Sob Gru 16, 2017 4:18 pm    Temat postu: Odpowiedz z cytatem

zagram_org napisał:
What we have on zagram (and had on szkrab), is 'a step towards game for territory', as you wrote, but not real territory rules


I agree, it turns out something intermediate.

zagram_org napisał:
we had a discussion whether 'pass' should be allowed and whether we want real territory rules


We also discussed this issue. Especially those players who seriously played Go. But this is very few people supported, which is understandable. Why then it was necessary to remake Go in dots, if then again to return to the starting position? It's easier then to play Go and forget about dots.

P.S. Thank you all for your comments and interesting conversation. It was useful. I clarified for myself some details of the Polish rules and introduced into the article two edits (about kopper and about the "clear proof").
Powrót do góry
 
 
senny_mojrzesz



Dołączył: 04 Lis 2005
Posty: 1360
Skąd: Legionowo,Londyn

PostWysłany: Sob Gru 16, 2017 6:19 pm    Temat postu: Odpowiedz z cytatem

Thank You.

Possibly double English translation was not very helpful Smile


I have a quastion about landing rules (different subject Smile )
When you decide to start with cross in the middle,
are you happy with this solution? Or you still thinking about better solution to avoid many ties games if someone like to play passively, or both players don't want to risk
Powrót do góry
 
 
Volunteer



Dołączył: 16 Lis 2017
Posty: 16
Skąd: Russia

PostWysłany: Pon Gru 18, 2017 10:23 pm    Temat postu: Odpowiedz z cytatem

senny_mojrzesz napisał:
are you happy with this solution?


The single cross gained popularity at "Points XT" and became "official" since the first offline tournaments in Kiev, which Kolosov spent (mid 2000's). Double cross and four single crosses came into use when our players began to play massively on "Zagram". The experience of holding tournaments in the last two years shows that even a single cross is doing its job well. Draws are few and they happen, as a rule, only when both opponents initially agree to a draw. But, if this is so, then the game will in any case end in a draw, regardless of the rules by which it is played. If the strong player is aimed at winning, then it is very difficult to defend without losing a single dot. Therefore, in games with rivals who play only from defense, no one tries to surround everything: took one dot in the attack and himself went into the defense. And let the opponent try to win. Sometimes, when approximately equal opponents play, the party turns into a swing: then one attacks, then another, while the difference in the score is minimal.
Powrót do góry
 
 
Wyświetl posty z ostatnich:   
Napisz nowy temat   Odpowiedz do tematu    Forum www.kropki.legion.pl Strona Główna -> Zasady i nauka gry Wszystkie czasy w strefie CET (Europa)
Idź do strony Poprzedna  1, 2
Strona 2 z 2

 
Skocz do:  
Nie możesz pisać nowych tematów
Nie możesz odpowiadać w tematach
Nie możesz zmieniać swoich postów
Nie możesz usuwać swoich postów
Nie możesz głosować w ankietach




wiadomosci z forum
Polityka cookies