When I was a kid I "won" a Stratego game with a non-move that my friend claimed was against the rules. So he claimed the win. Could I get an umpire's call here?
The issue is that when considering my next move, I picked up the bomb piece, thought for a few moments, put it back down, and moved another piece. My friend then, assuming that I had just given away that it was not a bomb, attempted to capture it, and lost the attacker.
He claimed that it was illegal to pick up that piece and put it down again, although he had no objection until he learned that I'd tricked him. We had never previously announced or enforced a touch-it-move-it rule.
So did I win that game or did he? That's not a question machine learning could answer.
Touching one of his own pieces does not
oblige a player to move it.
It also says:
Psychology, bluff and misleading manoeuvres
are considered important aspects of Stratego.
Bluffing consists of all verbal communication
(talking) or non-verbal communication (acting,
mimic or feign) which is intended to mislead
your opponent. All forms of bluff are allowed at
any time during the game, unless prohibited by
any other rule. Abuse will be considered
unsporting behaviour and can be penalized
accordingly.
In actual live game play, none of the top players use such kids' ploys as touching bombs pretending to be moveable pieces. Actual game play wouldn't change if the one touch move rule from chess or checkers were to be introduced.
The main thing the rules guard against is accidentally tripping over your opponent's or your own pieces. Especially during time trouble, it sometimes happens that you drop a piece. If your opponent reveals < 4 of your pieces, you can exchange all of them with any other of your pieces. With >= 4 "accidents", it's an automatic forfeit. If you tip over your opponent's flag, he is entitled to 3 swaps (may or may not be bombs).
I always wondered if the pieces could be redesigned to have a strong bias towards landing "face down" when bumped; I've definitely accidentally revealed pieces before when making a quick move.
You won because "He claimed that it was illegal to pick up that piece and put it down again, although he had no objection until he learned that I'd tricked him."
I think "touch-move" is perfectly valid to enforce, but you waive your right to do so once you move after that. If someone touches a piece in chess, then moves another piece, you don't get to go all the way until you're mated and then say there was an error you should have won on.
And if you touch an illegal to move piece, I would say there the penalty would probably be revealing the bomb (or that it is immobile), not forfeiture of the game.
Hmm that you picked up the piece might have been an infraction. I constantly touch the bomb pieces but I don't lift them off the ground which implies that they can move.
Tough call - glad that you are still carrying this from your childhood though. I would wager that you won but through borderline cheating. Still not sure TBH
By that argument, the opponent rightfully won, because negotiation is also a critical part of warfare. He got his opponent to give away a tactical battlefield victory on the basis of mutually agreed ground rules.
Of course, dissatisfaction with such outcomes has often resulted in further wars.
Comments
When I was a kid I "won" a Stratego game with a non-move that my friend claimed was against the rules. So he claimed the win. Could I get an umpire's call here?
The issue is that when considering my next move, I picked up the bomb piece, thought for a few moments, put it back down, and moved another piece. My friend then, assuming that I had just given away that it was not a bomb, attempted to capture it, and lost the attacker.
He claimed that it was illegal to pick up that piece and put it down again, although he had no objection until he learned that I'd tricked him. We had never previously announced or enforced a touch-it-move-it rule.
So did I win that game or did he? That's not a question machine learning could answer.
Official ISF tournament rules[1] say:
It also says:
So I think you won.
1: https://isfstratego.kleier.net/docs/rulreg/isfgamerules.pdf
I agree
Chapter 6 shows the sequences of moves, and then Chapter 7 says:
So if the piece was picked up and replaced on the starting square, it was not moved, and that's fine.
On the other hand, these rules incorporate some other rules by reference which includes:
A bomb hasn't exactly remained in the same place if it's been picked up, has it?
In actual live game play, none of the top players use such kids' ploys as touching bombs pretending to be moveable pieces. Actual game play wouldn't change if the one touch move rule from chess or checkers were to be introduced.
The main thing the rules guard against is accidentally tripping over your opponent's or your own pieces. Especially during time trouble, it sometimes happens that you drop a piece. If your opponent reveals < 4 of your pieces, you can exchange all of them with any other of your pieces. With >= 4 "accidents", it's an automatic forfeit. If you tip over your opponent's flag, he is entitled to 3 swaps (may or may not be bombs).
I always wondered if the pieces could be redesigned to have a strong bias towards landing "face down" when bumped; I've definitely accidentally revealed pieces before when making a quick move.
You won because "He claimed that it was illegal to pick up that piece and put it down again, although he had no objection until he learned that I'd tricked him."
I think "touch-move" is perfectly valid to enforce, but you waive your right to do so once you move after that. If someone touches a piece in chess, then moves another piece, you don't get to go all the way until you're mated and then say there was an error you should have won on.
And if you touch an illegal to move piece, I would say there the penalty would probably be revealing the bomb (or that it is immobile), not forfeiture of the game.
Hmm that you picked up the piece might have been an infraction. I constantly touch the bomb pieces but I don't lift them off the ground which implies that they can move.
Tough call - glad that you are still carrying this from your childhood though. I would wager that you won but through borderline cheating. Still not sure TBH
You won. Deception is obviously a critical part of all warfare.
By that argument, the opponent rightfully won, because negotiation is also a critical part of warfare. He got his opponent to give away a tactical battlefield victory on the basis of mutually agreed ground rules.
Of course, dissatisfaction with such outcomes has often resulted in further wars.
If you're playing seriously, I think if you touch a piece you need to move it.
Wow! I did exactly the same thing as a kid. I though I was sooooo clever.