I have a variation of EinStein (English = OneStone) in mind and call it ZweiStein (English = TwoStone).

SInce I cannot imagine that at least

I have a variation of EinStein (English = OneStone) in mind and call it ZweiStein (English = TwoStone).

SInce I cannot imagine that at least…

Sorry, obviously I hit the wrong key (is it possible to delete mismatched entries?)…

So a second try:

I have a variation of EinStein (English = OneStone) in mind and call it ZweiStein (English = TwoStone).

Since I cannot imagine that at least Ingo Alth?fer has thought about I would like to hear his - and of course your - opinion.

The variations:

1. Board size is 6x6.

2. Game Pieces are numbered from 2 to 12.

3. Roll is with 2 dice.

4. Maybe then “Best of 3”.

5. Anything else as it is.

Of course this would be a different game than EinStein!

Hi,

as you say it would be a totally different game than EinStein, as 2 dice ( I imagine, you are talking of 2 6-sided dice) do not generate an even distribution as one 6-sided die does. Your 7-stone would be much more valuable than your 2- or 12-stone. This creates an imbalance, which in my opinion, destroys the nice structure and tactics inherent in EinStein.

If using more playing pieces, I would also use a corresponding die e.g. an 8-sided die for 8 playing pieces.

Greetings

- Arne -

> … call it ZweiStein (English = TwoStone).

> Since I cannot imagine that at least Ingo Alth?fer

> has thought about I would like to hear his - and of

> course your - opinion.

> The variations:

> 1. Board size is 6x6.

> 2. Game Pieces are numbered from 2 to 12.

> 3. Roll is with 2 dice.

Probably you meant to take the sum of the two outcomes.

> …

> Of course this would be a different game than EinStein!

Indeed, it was one of the (many) variants

I tested. However, I did it with 10 stones

(no. 7 was omitted) instead of 11 to have a

more aesthetic starting position.

Unfortunately it turned out to be not so nice:

(i) The game is not so intuitive for humans.

(ii) Games are somewhat too long for my feeling.

(iii) Wins by having an opponent with 0 stones

left happen almost never (about 3 times per 1,000 games).

(iv) In average (between good players) a player

captures 4.5 own stones and only 2.0 foreign stones;

so it is not balanced with respect to capture/self-

capture. (See also my posting in the “true quality”

thread.)

A last point: “ZweiStein” would be a misleading name.

When I tested it the provisional name was “Didi-EinStein”

(Didi standing for DD = DoubleDice).

Ingo Althofer.

Considering it's a computer program that makes the rolls, it's very easy to have it generate rolls where each outcome is as likely as any other outcome. You could number the stones 1 to 11, 'A' to 'K', or even give them 11 different colours.

However, if you play on a 6x6 board, it's more logical to have 10 stones (4+3+2+1) instead of 11. And to roll a (simulated) 10 sided die.

I wouldn't call such a game “ZweiStein”, as having two stones still means you have to roll the die to know which stone(s) to move. I'd call it 'EinStein 6x6', just as we have Hex and Go in different sizes.

But I prefer having different games over variantions in board size.

Unfortunately it turned out to be not so nice:

Thanks, Ingo - and others - for the replies! So now I don't need to waste my mind anymore with this “idea” (and can bury ZweiStein).

Long live EinStein :)