Is this a bug?

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=1283690&nmove=33

Shouldn't the system have moved my man who scored the goal out of the goal-area box because I already had a man there? If my opponent didn't have a man other than his goalie on his back line, he would have had no legal way to play the 5 he got after I scored.

I see nothing strange in the game. Why should your player had to be moved away?

Furthermore, what has the man in the backline to do with having legal moves?? He would have plenty of legal moves even if he hadn't this man there...

I see nothing strange, at all :)

my guess: you have no legal move but resign... or wait and lose on time :)

well, THAT is a bug in the rules ;)

He would have had a legal move. I was mistaken. There is a position I've wondered about, where (for instance) the scoring player has men not only in the two spaces directly in from of the goalie spaces, but in the two spaces along side those. Then, if the post-goal kick is more than a 3 and the goalie has no one in position to pass to, there are no legal moves.

And I guess I was also confused about how many men I could have in the goal area.

You're allowed two men in your opponent's goal area. The rule against two non-goalies in your own goal area is partially enforced in that you can't walk into the situation but you can have a non-goalie in your own goal area and have another non-goalie walk to the ball on one of your two goalie-only squares, kick it and get placed one row up, becoming your second non-goalie in the goal area.

In this case, your opponent could have kicked the ball past your men, either along the left sideline (if he placed his goalie on the left) or the right sideline or the column next to it (if he placed his goalie on the right).

A situation could arise where the goalie would have no legal kick, and I have asked on forum posts what happens then, but I have not gotten an answer. If you too are curious about this, we could have an unrated experimental game and find out.

Also, it seems you are allowed two men in the two squares just above the two goalie-only squares, as long as one of them is the goalie.

Marley and I did create the unrated test game and did indeed make a position where I have no legal move. I've sent a message to Richard.

I rolled a 6 in that position.

Dvd confirmed that after I scored a goal and his goalie rolled a 6 for the post-goal kickoff, that the board appeared to him with two brown squares for the goalie's position. (Normal, so far.) Then when he clicked on one of the squares, it showed the board with no squares brown for the ball's destination. The only possible actions were to resign or to time out.

as I guessed. However, this is not a bug in the implementation, but a flaw in the rules, just like the move-all-your-players-out-of-bounds-and-win.

all of the flaws found so far are of same type (i.e., you don't have legal moves and are forced to resign), and are always forced by a weird sequence of your opponent.

I'd suggest that if you don't have legal moves, you win

your example where one player has no legal move is very interesting. It would be especially painful if you were ahead in score and had to resign due to no legal move. And even more painful if it was a team tournament and there was a serious penalty for resigning! Something should definitely be done to correct this. Maybe if there was no legal move, then the ball could be kicked anywhere on the field as a "free kick" (kick over the head of the other players). just an idea.

Gregorio, what do you mean by "like the move-all-your-players-out-of-bounds-and-win. "?? How does that win?

There was a big fuss some years ago about it. not sure if it was fixed somehow. I have invited you to a game to better exemplify how does that work (or at least worked).

ok, accepted. tell me what to do!

the bug seems fixed now, so never mind.

I mean the "move-all-your-players-out-of-bounds-and-win" flaw :)

How I can this fix ?? (There is similar problem when one player can block with men ball).

Some possible solutions:

1. Change StreetSoccer rules:

1a. Game is finished when this situation occurred (is draw, blocked player is lose, game is finished according to actual score, ...).

1b. Is not necessary to use all points on dice.

1c. Is not allowed to have connected more than two own players.

2. I am testing a new game (hockey) with similar rules as in StreetSoccer. Differences:

\* played on hexagonal board

\* rules 1b and 1c

\* game is finished when one player has determined number of goals

\* dice with values 6,6,5,4,3,2

some new ideas ?

My suggestion for a rules fix: re-roll until you et a usable throw.

et -> get

Agree with dvd. Blocking the ball with men (and enclosing a opponent's player) is not a problem, as the opponent can force the unblocking by pulling his player out.

Assume Red has scored a goal and Yellow has to kick off, but Red's players are arrayed so Yellow has no legal move. Some things that could be done:

A. Do nothing. Yellow must resign or time out.

B. Change the code to make sure Yellow gets a die roll that allows a legal move.

C. Forbid Red from moving his players such that for at least one of the possible die rolls, Yellow would have no legal move.

D. Forbid Red from occupying more than one of the four squares of Yellow's goal area. Red could still run to and kick a ball in Yellow's goal area, but the kicker would bounce out if there were already another Red player in Yellow's goal area, much like Red already bounces out when he runs to one of Yellow's two goal squares and kicks the ball.

E. Forbid Red from having four or more players in consecutive horizontal squares.

F. What other possibilities am I not thinking of?

Each of the above would also apply with "Red" and "Yellow" interchanged.

I don't like A, because it makes the game a poorer emulation of soccer. This situation seems to me like it needs another "anti-killjoy" rule.

I don't like B, because it means Yellow is going to have a terrible time getting the ball to where Red isn't immediately likely to score another goal. Red has found a way to make sure Yellow rolls a 2 or 3 on the post-goal kickoff. Once in this situation, Yellow couldn't bring in a non-goalie to act as a relay as long as Red is scoring goal after goal.

C is not bad, but it requires Richard's software to do a one-ply lookahead, and raises the problem of coaches not understanding why particular moves are forbidden.

D does fix the problem, right?

<br/>x......x
<br/>x.RR...x
<br/>x.R.RR.x
<br/>x..Y...x
<br/>xxxxxxxx

Yellow has legal kickoffs on all die rolls 2-6.

D and E have the side effect that some games already played would now contain illegal moves.

I suggest that if you don't have legal moves available, you WIN.

so it's up to your opponent to not force you to such a position (already discovered or not).

Thanks, Gregorio.

F. A player with no legal moves wins 5:0 if in first 52 moves, or 4:1 if the move is after the 52nd.

Do we have a G?

what about:

G. If there is no legal path, the ball can be kicked through (or over, as you like to call it) any opposing player (and if he doesn't like that, he can avoid it by not moving in such a manner)

H. If there is no legal path, one of the blocking players (randomly) gets moved backwards one square; repeat until works (same comment as above applies)

I. If there is no legal path, the ball stays out of the game, and the player must move any of his other pieces instead (remedying the situation if he chooses to, or not)

All those options avoid the 1-ply-lookahead, and make some sense. I actually don't like I so much really, because the attacker could use that to have a number of moves wasted and 'delay the game' (save a lead over time...). But that is a valid option in many other situations, so it is acceptable.

G would be an interesting rule change for post-goal kicks, even if there were other legal moves available.

Aganju, good out-of-the-box thinking. I would never have thought of your suggestion I.

Do we have a J?

Well, should we have a vote on A..I, then present the results to Richard and let him make a decision?

I. is quite clever since it only changes the "special" rule of putting the ball back in play after a goal is scored against you. The only problem I see is if the goal cuts a 2-0 lead to 2-1. There is incentive for the leading player to delay putting the ball back in play.

I must say that the simplicity of

1b. Is not necessary to use all points on dice.

in the case of no legal moves works for me, and gets an approval vote.

I also like Gregorio's "no legal moves = win" twist - not because I think I'd like to see it implemented, but because it opens the door to favouring the guy who's in the sticky situation. Which happily leads to Aganju's (I), which is the idea which went through my own mind. So that also gets an approval vote.

Anything which forbids more shapes, I don't like.

Another thing which has gone through my mind is the possibility to "split" a roll. At a cost of 1 (which clearly represents the loss of time for the players to comminicate with each other) you may split a roll (over 3, obviously) into two rolls, and move 2 different pieces. Of course, this removes the parity aspect of orthogonal movement, so is a huge change to the rules. Nevertheless one I think might be fun to try (I am not a fan of the parity aspects of the game).

I like G because it allows the scored-upon player to attain a reasonable position, even if blocked. I think blocking play in front of the opponent's goal is apt to be too powerful.