Issue with the rules/phrasing of poof pente.
Posted:
Oct 6, 2017, 3:47 AM
I'm going to post about a scenario regarding Poof-Pente. This could potentially affect a game in progress, so for the integrity of the game, please limit any discussion to the specific rule I plan to discuss, and the phrasing of that rule.
This is quoted from the rules of Poof-Pente on this website:
"Also note that my current implementation performs the following actions in sequence after a move:
Check if move captured any opponents stones, if so remove stones from the board. Check if move creates a poof position, if so remove stones from the board. Check if player has a 5-in-a-row, if so the player wins."
The key words here, are, "in sequence." That implies there is an order of priority, and that the list indicates what the priority is. Thus, I do not see how or why an already-captured stone would be able to be a capturing stone in a "poof." I'm specifically referring to the second game posted by Watsu in the original post of the September 3rd 2017 12:33 AM thread in this same forum.
In that game, white played 14 M13, capturing the black stones at M12 and O11. This makes sense, as per the written rule above: "check if move captured any opponents stones, if so, remove stones from the board."
Using the "in sequence" interpretation of the rules, at that point, and before anything else happens, the black N12 stone is removed from the board, and cannot be involved in Poofing the M13 stone that was just placed.
Now, I already discussed this with Watsu in the original post. Here was the result of the discussion:
Watsu: "ETA: re second game confusion - poofs and captures are given equal priority weight when one plays into a poof, since when we initially developed the game we couldn't decide on whether or not any captures made while playing into a poof spot should be taken or not. This equal priority weight is what can lead to 10-10 capture scores, where play then continues until one player has an advantage."
Now, if that's the rule, so be it; however, I must point out the contradiction between that interpretation and the listed rule that I posted at the top of this thread.
Furthermore, the 10-10 capture situation could still occur even without this equal priority interpretation of the rule. For example, a player could make a vertical capture that places his own stone into a horizontal poof. In that case, it would definitely be a "capture-Poof" situation, because once those two opponent stones are captured and removed, the other, different, opponent stones that would be committing the "poof" capture would still be on the board. In that case, the game would still be following a listed priority of events, and there would still be a capture-poof and the game would play on at 10 captures each.
If the "equal priority" interpretation is to be used, which it apparently is, then the wording must be changed to the following:
""Also note that my current implementation performs the following two actions simultaneously when a move is made:
1) Check if move would capture any opponents stones, and 2) Check if move creates a poof position.
If either scenario occurs, remove the captured stones, and then check to see if either player has 5 in a row, or 10 captures without the opponent also having 10 captures.
If BOTH scenarios occur, simultaneously remove all stones that would potentially be captured by the player making the move AND all stones that would potentially be poofed by existing defender stones, even if one of those defender stones is a stone that is going to be removed from the board as a result of a capture by the attacking player. If either player has 10 captures and a capture advantage, that player wins, if not, the game plays on."
That might be somewhat wordy, but I believe its the best way to make 100% clear that a capture-poof situation can occur even if the poofing stone is not going to be on the board after the move is resolved.
Re: Issue with the rules/phrasing of poof pente.
Posted:
Oct 6, 2017, 4:45 AM
I think in general Dmitri's description is a more accurate way to state how the game is implemented here than how the rules are currently stated. Perhaps to avoid any confusion it should read "at least 10 of the opponent's stones captured without said opponent having at least an equal number of stones captured" instead of "10 captures" which could potentially be misinterpreted as either exactly 10 stones or 10 pairs captured if someone weren't entirely familiar with the game.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Re: Issue with the rules/phrasing of poof pente.
Posted:
Oct 10, 2017, 7:16 PM
I still think there's room for confusion or ambiguity here.
I see no harm in adding one word, as follows:
Also note that my current implementation performs the following actions in sequence after a move:
1. simultaneously Check if the move captured any opponents stones and if it creates a poof position, if so, remove captured and poofed stones from the board.
......
Furthermore, if wordiness is a concern, a note can be added at the end of the sentence after "...from the board" , as follows:
"Please note - the simultaneous capture poof scenario can occur even when all the relevant stones are on the same line, and one of the stones being captured by the attacking player is also one of the stones making the poof capture against the attacking player."
Adding a diagram of the specific situation that occurred in the Ivans73 - Watsu game couldn't hurt either.
Re: Issue with the rules/phrasing of poof pente.
Posted:
Oct 11, 2017, 6:22 PM
Yes, precisely that situation. And if black plays M10, all 4 center stones are captured, leaving only white's K10 and black's P10, if I am interpreting the rule correctly?
