Both games are added.

Great, I'll sign up for Dameo immediately!

Maybe this is a good time and place to alert the community to an article on Dameo, in the context of the evolution of Draughts, in the new issue (Vol. 1, no. 2, 2015) of the [url=http://gapdjournal.com/issues/]Game & Puzzle design Journal[/url].

That is: Game & Puzzle Design Journal.

I notice the rules of Dameo are only accessible in a link in the Draughts rules at wiki.

Dameo rules (wiki)

Dameo rules (mindsports)

how do you play conhex?

http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv/conhex.html

(found using google “wiki conhex rules”)

1. pick a hole (not already picked) connected to any cell

2. if you have at least half the holes of a cell then it is yours

3. if your cells join together in your direction you win

P.S. centre cell has 5 holes, edge cells have 3 holes, rest have 6

Hooray! More games!

I'm super excited about Dameo and Conhex; ConHex definitely needs PIE to be implemented though.

A bit of patience may be required. In [game;id=1757192;title:here] the program still thinks it is Draughts (it doesn't accept a linear move). However in [game;id=1757188;title:here] I could open with a linear move. Start-up problems, presumably.

In ConHex is PIE rule implemented. According to rules: as second move you could change colour of first move.

Ah, I see how now. I was used to a separate “swap” option like in Hex/Slither; to swap in ConHex you just click the opponent's first move :)

I have contacted the inventor, Mikhail Antonow, about this. For a game like Y or Havannah, where the board has no inherent directionality, such a means of implementing swap would make sense. But the ConHex board is directional. For example, if red plays the first token at C2, which is closer to a blue border than a red one, this would be a stronger first move for red than it is for blue. The same situation exists for Hex, and swap is implemented correctly for Hex here. In my example, the red token on C2 should disappear and a blue token should appear on B3.

How could no one have noticed this?

Here is Michael's response:

Hello, David,

thank you very much for your interest and for your efforts. I am so happy to see ConHex implemented on LittleGolem and feel deeply obliged to you and to all the nice people who helped to make this happen.

As to your question about the pie rule resp. swap rule: you are right that this is a problem and I have always seen it the way you do. I have discussed it with Cameron Browne at the time when ConHex started at Richard's pbem but it was already published at that moment and we both agreed to leave it as it was. The main argument was that there IS a difference indeed, but not that strong as to justify the trouble with changing the rules. I am not a computer specialist and cannot judge how easy or how complicated it would be to have the swap rule altered.

Now that you pose the question again, I can answer in a similar way: I would prefer to have a PIE RULE (as you propose) rather than the SWAP RULE as it is still valid at Richard's pbem. But if it would cause some inconveniences, I would not insist. I also believe that the great majority of players don't see this as a problem. As to the few sophisticated (or too pedantic?) and over-ambitious tournament players, well, I can only say - just as Nestor Romeral Andres one of these days did - “the best pie-rule is to play again”

In short, my answer is: It's up to you (or up to Rio, he is the boss, after all). I am happy that so much more people are getting the chance to enjoy ConHex - and that's what really counts.

Thank you very much again!

Best wishes, Michael

So, Rio, the inventor says it's up to you. I may be pedantic, but an unfair game is not as interesting nor as deep as a fair game. It most likely places an upper limit on ELO ratings, making the game less interesting for strong players. I am surprised that Mr. Antonow, who has achieved such high ratings in many games, would regard this issue as relatively unimportant. I completely disagree with “the best pie rule is to play again.” Two imbalanced games are worse than one balanced game. You did it right in Hex, so hopefully it would not be difficult to implement a valid pie rule for ConHex. Maybe few players care, but that means they likely would not oppose the fix either. Please make this game fair. Thanks for your consideration.

Also here is another published version of the rules:

http://www.iggamecenter.com/info/en/conhex.html

In this version, for the real time site iggamecenter, The second player may swap sides. This is another way to produce a fair game, and that means it is different from the rules currently in place on LG.

I'm glad that Draughts and Dameo, like a vast majority of Draughts type games, are inherently fair. On the other hand, they contribute little to discussions about balancing systems. ;-)

Hello, everybody,

I am afraid I got things mixed up when I cited Nestor. What he actually wrote was: “The best TIE-BREAKING rule is to play again”  and this, of course, is something different from “PIE RULE”. Sorry, I quoted from memory … :-(   Please accept my apologies.

And now a question: after being absent from LG for so long time I feel like a newbie and don't quite understand the tournaments system.  I registered for all kinds of tournaments, but only see my name on the list for monthly tournaments and why not at the championship and the infinity?

The list for upcoming championships (who will be in first league, who is in which second league tournament, etc.) Is not finalized until the previous cycle ends. I suppose such a list could be displayed in the days before the next cycle starts, but it might still change if anyone drops out or joins. So, we find out when it starts. I am not familiar with the infinity system.

I agree with David J Bush on this issue with ConHex.

It would be best if this was corrected now that it's early and very few games have been played.

I add SWAP rule.

thanks Richard :)

Great to see ConHex implemented on LG.

I would like to play, however too many other obligations right now. Ten and a half years ago I had the honour to publish a first version of ConHex in my little 3-Hirn-Verlag:

And here is a photo with ConHex' designer Michail Antonow, taken during his vist in Jena back in 2009.

http://www.althofer.de/antonow-little-conhex.jpg

Thank you Richard! And also for the “Go” style board.

On the swap rule:

Note that if you implement it correctly, the game is certainly unfair (it is known that p2 has a winning strategy). With it implemented this way, it is not known if it is better to be player one or player two. Is this not correct?

I see the pie rule has been changed to the swap rule, however, if a player does the swap, then the blue player is playing red and the red player is playing blue, which is very confusing.  The swap should also swap the colors of the players, not just the stones?

please disregard the above comment.  It is correctly implemented.  The only confusion is in my mind.

“Note that if you implement [the swap rule] correctly, the game is certainly unfair (it is known that p2 has a winning strategy)”

that sounds weird, unfair yes, but not because of the swap rule. someone has a theoretical win at the beginning either way, the swap rule just makes you not start with one of the strongest winning moves which makes the game more fair because the 1 stone advantage becomes less relevant.

I meant with the 'wrong' swap rule which was initially used, I think that it is not known if p1 or p2 has the advantage.