https://brainking.com/jp/Board?bc=18 Discuss about tablut game or find new opponents. jp https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1191857 furbster: I wanted to see if the guy would resign. Sat, 31 Oct 2020 13:25:30 CET https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1191846 ughaibu: Why would'nt you just give yourself the win way before? Thu, 29 Oct 2020 13:57:42 CET https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1191816 If black has only two pieces left, they cannot possibly win, why do you think black doesn't resign this game Tablut (ughaibu vs. wasa) Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:15:09 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1187086 I meant 'where the king can be captured by two', sorry cannot see how I can edit my post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:44:37 CET https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1187085 Hi, I've come across some interpretations / translations which come down to the following ruleset (adjusting Clark94's list below): 1) White wins when the king reaches an edge square. 2) The throne is hostile. The throne isn't hostile to white when the king is on the throne. Once the king leaves a white piece can be captured against the throne. 3) The king can capture. The king is captured in the same as his men. 4) A king on the throne must be surrounded on all four sides and a king adjacent to the throne must be surrounded by three sides, much like here on this site. Many years ago when we were investigating and discussing the rules, I quickly dismissed the variant where the king can capture as being way too easy for black even when the king is armed. Any experiences to the contrary? Fri, 15 Mar 2019 14:42:21 CET https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1175187 Perhaps I should have separated the rules with another number, but it reads correctly. Unlike tablut where the king is weaponless, the king in this sense CAN capture. However to balance this he is able to be captured in the same manner as his men. With the exception of the king being on/adjacent to the throne. Mon, 24 Oct 2016 02:51:04 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1175177 Clark94: on number 5. You mean "The king can BE captured." ? Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:04:46 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1175168 Attacker base camps 1. Works with either 9x9 or 11x11 2. White wins when the king reaches an edge square other than a square where an attacker starts. These will be known as basecamps. (The squares where the attacker start) A 9x9 and 11x11 both have 16 victory squares. 3. Base camps act just like a hostile throne but for all peices. Once vacated by an attacker no one can land on any of these squares. 4. The throne is hostile. The throne isn't hostile to white when the king is on the throne. Once the king leaves a white piece can be captured against the throne. 5. The king can capture. The king is captured in the same as his men. This means that a king next to a base camp can be captured by one single piece. 6. A king on the throne must be surrounded on all four sides and a king adjacent to the throne must be surrounded by three sides, much like here on this site. This variant makes for a quick and bloody contest. I found the rules on an IOS app on my phone , it seems fairly balanced but I've only played against a computer. Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:12:42 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1136395 I have made a series of 28 videos on Tafl games, including 13 videos about the version of Tablut here at this site. The videos cover rules, strategy, openings, endgame, and sample games. Here is my channel where you can find all 28 videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/HnefataflModern?blend=1&ob=video-mustangbase Thanks. Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:14:38 CET https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1135778 WhisperzQ: probably this discussion is the best thing of the game! Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:42:23 CET https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1135694 It is my view that if perpetual check were to become a loss for White then the White King should be given the ability to act as a pawn for capturing Black pieces (an ability which does exist in some variants). If the rules were to change to make perpetual checking by White a win by Black then the balance has changed and it is no longer Black's objective to capture the White King but merely (a word used here to create emotional rather than rational effect) to stop the White King getting to the border. For me this is a significant reduction in the task for Black. Well executed this will also eventually result in the capture of the White King, poorly executed a win by forced perpetual check. There are certainly times when the perpetual checking can be stopped by Black by moving a different piece so the result is not always White's "fault". I can also foresee times when Black's move will be coloured by the expectation of containment giving a less aggressive and more containment approach rather going for the kill which, to me, is what Tablet is about. The age old struggle of fight (Black) or flight (White), not siege and fight. Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:37:19 CET https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1128187 Thanks, ughaibu. Well, there is another tafl site on the internet that has adopted the rules used here at brainking. It is http://aagenielsen.dk/ There are several tafl games and you must select 9x9 Tablut with "Marseille" rules. Those rules are identical to ours. However, I do not think I was able to convince them of the perpetual check rule. And the site is only live play, no correspondence. That makes three sites now (brainking, dragonheelslair, and aagenielsen) that has this version. Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:25:35 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1128167 I think his reply is silly. Rules about perpetual check exist in other games, and like all rules, they concern the behaviour of players. This guy seems to think that pieces exist in some ideal non-human world, and that's nonsense. It may be a wonderful thing about tablut, that the game is asymmetrical, unfair if you like, but it's not a wonderful thing if all the asymmetricality favours one side over the other. Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:26:37 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1127847 ughaibu: What do you make of this, though? It's seems a rational argument--- This was his reply to mine. "Its unsportsmanlike to cheat, to move the king diagonally or remove enemy pieces when they aren't looking. But these things are impossible IF one follows the rules, and would be tantamount to wizardry in the world of the hnefatafl pieces. Its unsportsmanlike to wave your hands in front of your opponents face shouting 'Not touching you!' repeatedly. But it is not forbidden by the rules as it really doesn't affect the little men on the board. That is a 'code of conduct' that most players would, thankfully, happily agree to. So, what about white forcing a perpetual check at the board edge or corner? Arguably this is unsporting. I have argued against that as an opinion, but what interests me here is: is it relevant in a discussion of rules? It occurs to me that forbidding a particular player behaviour is a code of conduct, not a model defining rule. The rules govern how the pieces can behave, not how the players should behave. If we want perpetual check to not be a part of the model of the world a tafl variant portrays, it should be impossible to achieve, not forbidden according to player opinion creating an add on code of conduct. To make the forbidding of perpetual check a rule defining the physical laws in the hnefatafl world, it would have to read something like: Rule: A king may not move between two or more checking positions repeatedly in order to force a draw. If he does this three times in a row white automatically loses the game. As the Ko rule is described on wikipedia: A play is illegal if it would have the effect (after all steps of the play have been completed) of creating a position that has occurred previously in the game. Consequence (ko rule). One may not play in such a way as to recreate the board position following one's previous move. So that sounds like a rule governing the physical behaviour of a piece on the board (like saying soldiers can only move like rooks, its not a matter of opinion, its just how things are in their universe). But here's the thing, the REASON for introducing the rule is a matter of code of conduct: 'Its unfair', 'its unsportsmanlike'. Is that a good reason for introducing a physical law? Surely its a matter of personal opinion? To say 'It makes the game unbalanced' would be a much better reason (Warder has indicated this idea to me in a private message and I am more sympathetic towards this argument, "Saying, "black has not played well enough to completely contain the king" is not fair. That now means that black's goal has now changed to where he must not only capture the king, but now he cannot even allow a check for fear of perpetual check. Both burdens are not equal. You have put more burden on black. One player (white) controls check. Black can only get out of it once he is placed in it. Black's goal should be to capture the king, period. Not to capture the king before getting into check or perpetual check. That is asking too much of black.‬", An interesting argument, but other rule adjustments that address the physical laws of the game can fix power imbalances (Weaponless king etc etc) without forbidding behaviour. Also blacks goal has not changed until perpetual check is forbidden, at which point things get much easier for him. And while white can easily force a perpetual check in edge tafl, one would expect the white player to give up on it in a bid to win the game, especially if the points for a draw are 0,0. The tafl game is inherently lopsided, asymmetrical, that's one of its great attractions. So I personally don't have a problem with one of blacks challenges to be avoiding allowing white to get into a perpetual check position, as that is one of the things possible in the hnefatafl universe model. You could use the same argument to say its an unfair burden on white to have to get the king to the edge. Black don't even have a king to worry about, that's asking too much of white. And Its an unfair burden on black to have to capture the king at all, white don't have to capture the black king. Isn't that unfair? Suppose I thought it was unfair that white has only half the players, its unfair, its unsportsmanlike to have twice as many men. And why can't black have a king? It hardly seems fair that only white have a king? Why don't we introduce a rule that says black are not allowed to use half of their men, or better yet have to remove half of their men from the board at the start of the game, to be good sports. And black also get a king. Right, now lets address this unfair asymmetry thing, white starts on one side, and have to get their king to the other side, and vise versa. Thats better, a lovely fair game. And look, we can allow forced perpetual checking now as both sides can do it, so its not unfair anymore! Brilliant. Oh, wait, what happened to our hnefatafl game? It looks like chess all of a sudden. While we are on the subject of unsportsmanlike, look at custodial capture. Its an illustration of killing someone by overwhelming them with numbers. Two soldiers are fighting a fair fight, another slips in and stabs one in the back. And four side king capture? Very noble. I posit that hnefatafl is a game that revels in unfairness. What matters, I think we all agree, is balance between experienced players. Ought not this balance be achieved by the physical laws, of what is and is not possible in the hnefatafl universe , not by what is 'allowed' on grounds of fairness? (regardless of if it works for Go or backgammon, tafl is nothing like either) Is not the magic of a strategic board game the life like complexity that emerges from a simple set of physical laws? If, in any tafl variant it turns out there is a way for either side to force a draw which is unavoidable from the start of the game regardless of the opponents actions, then I agree we have a problem, and that that variant is to be consigned, deservedly, to the dustbin of history without regret. My great fear is that this has already happened, allowing chess to take over in the middle ages, as it doesn't suffer from this problem. However, if it does happen to a tafl variant, I hope we have the nerve to bin it, or find a rule set that addresses and fixes the problem physically, without resorting to telling players how to behave on the board. I look forward to responses explaining why I'm wrong! But lets try to keep it to reasons that are not based on opinions about what is good sportsmanship. As if that is all we are talking about, then there is no objective truth to the matter and we could argue without end or reason until the cows come home. And to reiterate, the tournament players at this site seem to agree that the simplest way to prevent easy draw positions allowing weak white players to do well by refusing to play to win, evaporates entirely with a points system win 1, lose 0, draw 0,0. I am very fond of the Fetlar rules, but if our present research proves that white can indeed force a draw fort in the opening moves in spite of blacks most valiant efforts to stop them, then hnefatafl is once again in trouble as the game would, I agree, be pretty daft. Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:00:05 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1127816 There's no reason that rules should be imported from chess, particularly as these are modern introductions even within the rules of chess. Were shogi the default game neither stalemate nor perpetual raichi would be allowed. Naturally, rules for tablut should be considered only on their independent merit for the game tablut, and it is clearly established that the strongest players think that perpetual raichi is a loss for white. Sat, 17 Sep 2011 05:42:13 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1127687 Son of Monse: I don't like the stalemate rule in chess either. However, it might be too late to change it. Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:00:02 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1127684 Please allow me to reintroduce the perpetual check topic. I am currently discussing perpetual check with a player from another site. Please read below and comment, thanks! My colleague wrote: “It occurs to me that as often as not, black will be wanting to force a draw to prevent the king from winning, so rewarding only black for such behaviour seems unjust.” My reply: Black cannot force a draw in playing to the edge. If he is able to secure a perimeter, he will capture the king eventually. A draw by black only applies to corner tafl. Black can force a draw in corner tafl by securing the three squares that block each corner. Black could secure the corners too by making a complete ring of men around the board (see my game against the computer), but there is only a slim chance for a draw in the situation of a complete ring. The reason is because the second example has more men available to surround the king (the first example, the men cannot leave the corner squares to help, but in the second example black’s pieces can start moving inward one man at a time). It is more likely to be a black win. In any case, white has 0% chance of winning in either example. Again, in edge tafl, black cannot force a draw. With so many open squares to protect, black cannot place three men at each corner. And if he can form a ring of men around the board (very rare), it always results in a white loss (white’s men will always end up captured one by one, including the king). He continued: “If a stalemate occurs, it is both because white has not played well enough to escape, and that black has not played well enough to completely contain the king.” I disagree. Perpetual check is not a stalemate, and the reason it is a loss for white is because white is the only player who controls check. Black can only react to check. Even if black plays perfectly, white can usually get a check in to the side. In edge tafl, even if black plays perfectly, there are circumstances where white can force a perpetual check in just a few opening moves. Further, you stated “white has not played well enough to escape”. That is why he should not be able to force a draw. White would therefore only have to play hard enough or just good enough to force perpetual check, not win the game. Saying, “black has not played well enough to completely contain the king” is not fair. That now means that black’s goal has now changed to where he must not only capture the king, but now he cannot even allow a check for fear of perpetual check. Both burdens are not equal. You have put more burden on black. He continued: “Neither side has played well enough, so there is nothing unfair about calling it a draw.“ Yes there is when only one player (white) controls check. Black can only get out of it once he is placed in it. Black’s goal should be to capture the king, period. Not to capture the king before getting into check or perpetual check. That is asking too much of black. Perhaps the best way to put it is this: Getting into perpetual check (white’s moves) is easier than preventing it (black’s moves). They are not the same as you are suggesting. "We have adopted a system where a win is 1 point, and a draw is zero points for both players.Making it less tempting to force a draw, whereas .5 points for a draw makes it more tempting. Also, as a chess player, I'm sure you are aware of the leverage potential of threatening a player with a forced draw. This is something which we have discovered enriches hnefatafl enormously, and makes for some very entertaining end games." I did not comment further. SoM Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:28:00 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1120086 Thanks so much - really interesting material. I didn't know the Tablut-cross-symbol was so common in the Viking culture! Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:28:31 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1119577 fixed link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_men%27s_morris Sun, 26 Jun 2011 21:09:29 CEST https://brainking.com/jp/print/Board?bc=18&ngi=1119576 The Roman game Nine Men’s Morris--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_men%27s_morris --was also very popular with the Vikings (several boards have been found at Viking excavated sites, one on the back of a tafl board): http://vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/uploads/media/MoelleENG_01.pdf Sun, 26 Jun 2011 21:08:54 CEST