Re: [pbmserv-dev] WarpAndWeft End of game

[Phil Bordelon <phil@lsu.edu>]

Randall Bart wrote:
> In WarpAndWeft Board 126 (below), I have lost.  There is no way for me 
> to complete a vertical line, and if my opponent does not forfeit and 
> occasionally takes a thread, he will inevitably complete the horizontal 
> line.  Yet the program does not detect victory.
>
> The ruke as written says "The first player to connect their two sides of 
> the board with a continuous chain of Threads and Patches is the winner. 
> Alternatively, the first player who has no valid play is the loser."
>
> The second line is quite preposterous; you can always issue a 
> threads/patches command.  The first line looks correct, yet is 
> unnecessarily strict.  You can't move in your opponent's threads.  
> There's no need to actually fill in your threads.  If you complete a 
> line of patches (as Vitalik has done below) that should end it.

While it could be worded better, I hardly consider the second line
preposterous.  If you have neither a valid Thread move or a Patch move
available, then you have lost.  I, of course, should have realized that
the rules were going to be attacked by rules lawyers when I wrote them,
and for that I apologise.

And yes, the filling-in of threads is unnecessary.  I think Cam coded the
pbmserv implementation out of the goodness of his heart, though, and it's
up to his continued goodwill to made that optimisation.  That said, it is
functionally equivalent to a version stating only the need for Patches, and
a hell of a lot easier to say in plain English.

> On the same topic, in Patch Primary mode there's no reason to ever make 
> a thread.  This causes the game to reduce to just the patches, which may 
> make the game equivalent to Gale or some other game.

Yup.  I realized that after I proposed it.

P