Redstone Invitational

[MarkSteere]

More of an inquiry than an announcement. I'd like to have eight or at least four players who can make a couple/few moves per day. I'll provide a set of red gemstone Go stones as a winner take all prize. Possibly a second place, lower grade set could be offered if it were eight players instead of four.

The red stones might come from here:
http://www.algorithmicartisan.com/gosto ... tones.html

[luigi]

How about that? Mark Steere, the tournament organizer!

Hmm, maybe I should buy some luxury Reversi stones and set them as a prize for a [sl=LooseGoVariant]Loose[/sl] tournament too...

[MarkSteere]

Flippy games are generally not as interesting, Luis, especially if they're awkward and totally Go dependent. They have capturing and they're finite because nothing gets removed. It makes the design process easier and it shows.

[luigi]

Flippy games are generally not as interesting,

You said a mouthful: only "generally", and mainly because most existing tile flipping games, notably Reversi, are too tactical. On the contrary, Loose is very strategic.

especially if they're awkward

Well, I hope you won't take it personal, but, come to that, I'd say red stones are far more awkward. They're too obviously a means to an end, and you even said they were an "aesthetic Hiroshima". What makes you think that Loose would fit in that rather apocalyptic category?

and totally Go dependent.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that it's similar to Go, then Redstone is clearly more Go dependent than Loose. In the latter, the "looser" capturing rules define the dynamic character of its tactics and introduce an entirely new set of life and death situations, not to mention tesuji.

This said, if I like Redstone despite its awkwardness is precisely because it's so similar to Go, as you already know. I honestly can't see how this is suddenly a drawback when it comes to Loose, if that's what you were trying to say.

[Tile flipping] makes the design process easier and it shows.

By the same token, one might say that there's nothing easier, if you want your game to be finite, than forcing players to drop a permanent stone when making a move with the potential to eventually cause a cycle. Almost any game can be made finite with this rule (chess, draughts, Lines of Action...) and I'm sure most of the resulting games, though hardly elegant, would be interesting to play, just like Redstone. In my opinion, the mere fact that Redstone and Loose use "easy" rules to ensure finitude doesn't make them any more or less worthy.

[MarkSteere]

I wasn't trying to condemn your game as "less worthy", Luis. I was actually thinking of my own disappointing flippy game, Mosaic. I don't even remember the rules. But, yes, flip chips make the design process "easier" in a sense.

I don't think I even had a point. I was just reacting to the ongoing Redstone rancor. I understand it from Christian ("If ever a game would be worthy of the name 'Hiroshima', [Redstone] is the one,") because I reviewed one of his games unfavorably years ago. But I don't understand it from you.

[hyperpape]

In my opinion, the mere fact that Redstone and Loose use "easy" rules to ensure finitude doesn't make them any more or less worthy.

You there, stop talking sense immediately .

[luigi]

I wasn't trying to condemn your game as "less worthy", Luis. I was actually thinking of my own disappointing flippy game, Mosaic.

OK, thanks for clearing this up.

I was just reacting to the ongoing Redstone rancor. I understand it from Christian ("If ever a game would be worthy of the name 'Hiroshima', [Redstone] is the one,") because I reviewed one of his games unfavorably years ago. But I don't understand it from you.

I've explained my opinion on Redstone in a number of occasions. It's not quite the ideal Go variant for me, but I think it's pretty good.