[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[Soloman]

My problem is you and I guess other igh ranking players are trying to create a condition that cannot exist in this game and want to create a solution for an impossible position that only exists in your minds not in constraints of the game. It is a huge waste of resources to even discuss this since it does not exist in the reality of the game a stalemate occurs when you cannot make a move not when you choose to not make a move.

You whole premise is based on fear of risk and while I will admit that in a lot of cases that has benefitted you higher ranks do to your ability to not deter from just building up till everyone is ridiculously powerful this mentality creates the base for this non issue. I have seen in this game an attack against 9 troops with 50+ attacking and the attacker lost that battle it is the nature of the game. Your ideology ignores that fact and acts upon fear and attempts to create a situation where you believe you have no moves when you do if you just take the chance as the game was designed to be...

I truly hate to use this as a line of argument but you honestly do not understand... i have attempted to explain that this is a reality and not just a construct of our cowardice but your obtuse reasoning clings to the belief that you do understand the problem. Your perception that we are fundamentally wrong in our outlook upon the game, makes your constructive input impossible.
Honestly, trust me, you do not know what we are talking about and i am not saying that to maintain control, gain victory over you or even to be mean it is simply the truth and we need to move forward please.

Ohh but I fully understand what you are saying I have been in escalating games on the classic map where we all had armies in excess of 200 and everyone was afraid to break the Deadlock. On one my boldness won the day on 3 others I lost, so please do not think I do not understand why you want the benefit of a calling it a draw and starting over as it is a huge risk to be audacious and make that bold attack but I accept that sometimes I will fail with my boldness and other times that same boldness will win the game for me, you my friend are the one who does not understand that is the spirit of the game...

[jiminski]

Stalemates can and do happen... (and they can be broken (albeit with a lot of hard work and patience!)) it's part of the game when you have such a high level of skill as found on this website...

When you're round a board... you just get bored (or too pissed) and call it a day...

But here - as you only have to play once a day (or even week) then you carry on playing!!

Personally - this is one of the better solutions out there... however there is a problem...

When you say "roll up the points and move to another game" -> which points are you talking about? Just the points from the players who are eliminated? Whose score to you calculate from? (Also there is no need to keep rolling up the points - as you can only score points from eliminated players - so this avoids the abuse).

The way I see it - is that the game becomes paused - and then a new game is started with the remaining players... then when this game is one (or paused) the winner takes the points from the first games eliminated players - and the points from the new game(s) players. That way you don't need to bother about storing current rank values etc... you just calculate it all when the final game is concluded.

C.

Well the way i see it, is that the winner of the replacement game takes all the points of all players from both games .
So you will have to have register and store peoples points at the time they make agreement; As you click for unanimity you take a a score snapshot. (you know more than i how easy that is)
to be honest you would have to store all points even if you only took the points of the eliminated players from the first game as you would need to calculate all possibilities. I think if you did not take the original rank people could manipulate their score; throwing games to maximise the double-up?

what do you think Yeti... Is this feasible for code etc?

[FabledIntegral]

From what I've gathered from this threat, Soloman is a complete douche.

Stalemate: 2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock

The definition you gave refers to chess and chess only. As you said "Deadlocks occur only out of fear of loss but they do occur but they are not stalemates and can still be played through"

Therefore you are wrong by definition, you are attempting to argue minute details that have no pertinence to the discussion which search for solution. The only solution you've proposed is to give up - a very poor decision and nothing more than a waste of discussion in this thread. Instead of looking for a potential solution (whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant), you go off topic. You can criticize the specific flaws of what he described, or state that you would rather it not occur, but to have the absolute idiocy of claiming that one should just give up and loss is one that wastes my time when reading.

This game is indeed a spin-off of RISK. However, you are completely incorrect when you say that you should man up and take risks. This game is NOT about taking risks, as the designers of the gameboard obviously did not know the ideal strategy for the game, just as makers of video games like Starcraft don't know what the best strategies are for the game, pros figure it out.

Taking risks will more often than not be detrimental, not beneficial. It's like the lottery, more often than not you're going to lose. So don't even try to give that advice to tell people to end stalemates, as you're just telling people to take a risk (when others sit around) and let the others win. No one wants to get into a stalemate. However, for one to suicide (take a "risk") and hand the game to someone else who can pick up is retardation. Just as it's absolutely moronic to attack something like 3v5, or even 3v3. Sure, it's a "risk" and you may get lucky, but find out how many times you are going to succeed. You won't very often, and it's nothing more than showing the characteristics of a poor player.

This game is completely about playing your odds and statistics, no matter what. In a situation like Doodle Assassin, odds are if you don't make the move first, someone else will and if 7 other players make moves, odds are that ONE will get lucky, and therefore odds are you should do something. It has nothing to do with just trying to get lucky. Always play your odds, don't attack if it's not beneficial.

This post is dedicated to the retardation that Soloman has been spewing in this thread. I wouldn't mind if he had a legitimate point but he's just detracting from any possible real solutions.

Ironically enough the higher the rank the more they agree with this idea, I have threatened noone in this thread I am pointing out a matter of fact stalements are not real on this site and this thread is a detraction from the rest of the valid suggestions in this forum. To degrade to name calling and shows the maturity of the individual doing so. This idea has no grounding in reality as far as odds and statistics are concerned. Due to the random nature of random.org there is no way to accurately calculate the variable involved thus the fact that there are so many lopsided attacks and complaints about the dice.

It is very inane that someone would assume that the originaters of this game had no logic in the design of the game or how games would play out, the fact we are here playing on this forum shows they must have designed it pretty well for it to have survived and evolved to the state it is. The wordplay of the name Risk comes into the core of the game and the reason a site like random.org is used there is always a element of incalcuaable risk in every play due to the volatile nature of the dice and thus adding the dynamic of chance to the game.

Stalements are only in games where there is no chance just calculation such as checkers and chess. I go back to the point that this is a cop out option designed for those who cannot accept loss and refuse to take a chance, this ideology may increase your points in some cases but in the long run detracts from the spirit of the game. I go back to my point also that this would result in cycles of perpetual reset games and bullying to players whom do not agree to terms, this is not only a bad idea based on a nonexistant situation but also a pandoras box for abuse...

1. You are arguing the "definition" of a stalemate. You are WRONG. Look at the definition, there is no arguing against it. You *admitted* that there are deadlocks. The definition of a stalemate *includes* that of a deadlock. Therefore by logic you are WRONG.

2. You are arguing denotations vs connotations. Even if you were right in point 1, although by DEFINITION I just proved you wrong, it doesn't take away from the fact that anyone with common logic would be able to see the point he's trying to make.

3. You are a low rank. You obviously, by your moves, fail to see the gist of things. When everyone has 200 armies it's not necessarily a stalemate. However, you have said it yourself that there can *never* be a stalemate, and THUS by definition there could never be a deadlock. When everyone on the board, in an EXTREME situation (as I can use extreme situations as you consistently use the word "never") would have 3,000+ armies (as just happened in a speedgame stalemate recently that took over 3 hours to resolve), statistically there is no attacking move that could benefit you if you're surrounded by large armies. No "risk" could benefit you either. The dice come from random.org as you've noted, however there are no NEW numbers. All numbers are consistently being REUSED in a cycle. Therefore there's only a LIMITED number of possibilities of the dice, in those sequences. Unless there IS some sequence that could allow you to win 3,000 straight dice rolls, or even win 2,500 and lose 500 (which statistically speaking, there is near ZERO chance that it could happen within the 500,000 number list that is in the cycle), there is NO SUCH THING as ANY risk that could benefit you. In the chance that we were constantly using new numbers, one could hope for such a feat, however, with recycled numbers, it's not going to be possible.

4. In such a game, less extreme, and say there was only a 10% chance of winning by taking such a "risk" and 90% chance of losing, then there would STILL BE A PROBLEM WITH GAMEPLAY. Gameplay should reward those who use strategy, and of course the occasional risky endeavor, yet when you're shut down in a situation where you have to wait for OTHER players to be stupid, then there's a problem with the fundamentals of the game, and therefore your logic is STILL flawed.

5. You are not pointing out "false" statements, you are criticizing once again word usage that apparently only YOU find incorrect. I haven't found anyone else who agrees with you, even dictionary.com.

6. I never said the designers of the game had no logical basis. However I said that they ARE NOT the experts on such game matters. Show me some type of strategy game where the inventor knew the best strategy. Do you think the inventor of chess was the best chess player? Or do you think other players who studied it found the better strategies. Same thing with what I said in starcraft. Why do you think the makers of Halo aren't the best? Could they predict in Halo2 how retarded certain weapon combos would be? If they could, they would have balanced it from the beginning and wouldn't have to released patches. Originators very RARELY know the best balanced course for a game simply because they are already biased in how they think the game should be played out.

7. I would consider myself a high ranker, and I do NOT agree with his suggestion. However that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing with you on the fact you're contributing nothing to this thread. You can talk about the flaws in his ideas, etc., and want to shut that down, but you're just being a moron that's arguing that no solution should be found. EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, it has NO PLACE in this thread. This IS NOT a thread to debate on whether stalemates exist (although to friggin' shut you up I already PROVED you wrong by YOUR own definition), it's to debate whether a certain course of action should be enacted. I disagree, although I see where he is coming from.

8. Your own belief in taking chances that have literally a statistically probability of less than 0.0001% (which, if necessary, I could EASILY show statistic data to show why that would be an accurate number) to win, in order to get the game over, detracts significantly more from the game than would be to give up on it and find a solution. YOUR suggestion of suiciding detracts from the spirit of the game, and I would guess a majority of players agree with me.

9. Your idea that it would lead to the "bullying up of players who do not agree to terms" is unrealistic, as it would be no different than current games. People already decide to play doodle earth assassin games to find conclusions to stalemates, and those who disagree could just as easily bully up on a person.

And yes you're a friggin' douche once again for simply arguing definitions and going off-topic. As said I disagree with his suggestion, but at least I'm not spewing mindless BS.

[Soloman]

From what I've gathered from this threat, Soloman is a complete douche.

Stalemate: 2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock

The definition you gave refers to chess and chess only. As you said "Deadlocks occur only out of fear of loss but they do occur but they are not stalemates and can still be played through"

Therefore you are wrong by definition, you are attempting to argue minute details that have no pertinence to the discussion which search for solution. The only solution you've proposed is to give up - a very poor decision and nothing more than a waste of discussion in this thread. Instead of looking for a potential solution (whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant), you go off topic. You can criticize the specific flaws of what he described, or state that you would rather it not occur, but to have the absolute idiocy of claiming that one should just give up and loss is one that wastes my time when reading.

This game is indeed a spin-off of RISK. However, you are completely incorrect when you say that you should man up and take risks. This game is NOT about taking risks, as the designers of the gameboard obviously did not know the ideal strategy for the game, just as makers of video games like Starcraft don't know what the best strategies are for the game, pros figure it out.

Taking risks will more often than not be detrimental, not beneficial. It's like the lottery, more often than not you're going to lose. So don't even try to give that advice to tell people to end stalemates, as you're just telling people to take a risk (when others sit around) and let the others win. No one wants to get into a stalemate. However, for one to suicide (take a "risk") and hand the game to someone else who can pick up is retardation. Just as it's absolutely moronic to attack something like 3v5, or even 3v3. Sure, it's a "risk" and you may get lucky, but find out how many times you are going to succeed. You won't very often, and it's nothing more than showing the characteristics of a poor player.

This game is completely about playing your odds and statistics, no matter what. In a situation like Doodle Assassin, odds are if you don't make the move first, someone else will and if 7 other players make moves, odds are that ONE will get lucky, and therefore odds are you should do something. It has nothing to do with just trying to get lucky. Always play your odds, don't attack if it's not beneficial.

This post is dedicated to the retardation that Soloman has been spewing in this thread. I wouldn't mind if he had a legitimate point but he's just detracting from any possible real solutions.

Ironically enough the higher the rank the more they agree with this idea, I have threatened noone in this thread I am pointing out a matter of fact stalements are not real on this site and this thread is a detraction from the rest of the valid suggestions in this forum. To degrade to name calling and shows the maturity of the individual doing so. This idea has no grounding in reality as far as odds and statistics are concerned. Due to the random nature of random.org there is no way to accurately calculate the variable involved thus the fact that there are so many lopsided attacks and complaints about the dice.

It is very inane that someone would assume that the originaters of this game had no logic in the design of the game or how games would play out, the fact we are here playing on this forum shows they must have designed it pretty well for it to have survived and evolved to the state it is. The wordplay of the name Risk comes into the core of the game and the reason a site like random.org is used there is always a element of incalcuaable risk in every play due to the volatile nature of the dice and thus adding the dynamic of chance to the game.

Stalements are only in games where there is no chance just calculation such as checkers and chess. I go back to the point that this is a cop out option designed for those who cannot accept loss and refuse to take a chance, this ideology may increase your points in some cases but in the long run detracts from the spirit of the game. I go back to my point also that this would result in cycles of perpetual reset games and bullying to players whom do not agree to terms, this is not only a bad idea based on a nonexistant situation but also a pandoras box for abuse...

1. You are arguing the "definition" of a stalemate. You are WRONG. Look at the definition, there is no arguing against it. You *admitted* that there are deadlocks. The definition of a stalemate *includes* that of a deadlock. Therefore by logic you are WRONG.

2. You are arguing denotations vs connotations. Even if you were right in point 1, although by DEFINITION I just proved you wrong, it doesn't take away from the fact that anyone with common logic would be able to see the point he's trying to make.

3. You are a low rank. You obviously, by your moves, fail to see the gist of things. When everyone has 200 armies it's not necessarily a stalemate. However, you have said it yourself that there can *never* be a stalemate, and THUS by definition there could never be a deadlock. When everyone on the board, in an EXTREME situation (as I can use extreme situations as you consistently use the word "never") would have 3,000+ armies (as just happened in a speedgame stalemate recently that took over 3 hours to resolve), statistically there is no attacking move that could benefit you if you're surrounded by large armies. No "risk" could benefit you either. The dice come from random.org as you've noted, however there are no NEW numbers. All numbers are consistently being REUSED in a cycle. Therefore there's only a LIMITED number of possibilities of the dice, in those sequences. Unless there IS some sequence that could allow you to win 3,000 straight dice rolls, or even win 2,500 and lose 500 (which statistically speaking, there is near ZERO chance that it could happen within the 500,000 number list that is in the cycle), there is NO SUCH THING as ANY risk that could benefit you. In the chance that we were constantly using new numbers, one could hope for such a feat, however, with recycled numbers, it's not going to be possible.

4. In such a game, less extreme, and say there was only a 10% chance of winning by taking such a "risk" and 90% chance of losing, then there would STILL BE A PROBLEM WITH GAMEPLAY. Gameplay should reward those who use strategy, and of course the occasional risky endeavor, yet when you're shut down in a situation where you have to wait for OTHER players to be stupid, then there's a problem with the fundamentals of the game, and therefore your logic is STILL flawed.

5. You are not pointing out "false" statements, you are criticizing once again word usage that apparently only YOU find incorrect. I haven't found anyone else who agrees with you, even dictionary.com.

6. I never said the designers of the game had no logical basis. However I said that they ARE NOT the experts on such game matters. Show me some type of strategy game where the inventor knew the best strategy. Do you think the inventor of chess was the best chess player? Or do you think other players who studied it found the better strategies. Same thing with what I said in starcraft. Why do you think the makers of Halo aren't the best? Could they predict in Halo2 how retarded certain weapon combos would be? If they could, they would have balanced it from the beginning and wouldn't have to released patches. Originators very RARELY know the best balanced course for a game simply because they are already biased in how they think the game should be played out.

7. I would consider myself a high ranker, and I do NOT agree with his suggestion. However that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing with you on the fact you're contributing nothing to this thread. You can talk about the flaws in his ideas, etc., and want to shut that down, but you're just being a moron that's arguing that no solution should be found. EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, it has NO PLACE in this thread. This IS NOT a thread to debate on whether stalemates exist (although to friggin' shut you up I already PROVED you wrong by YOUR own definition), it's to debate whether a certain course of action should be enacted. I disagree, although I see where he is coming from.

8. Your own belief in taking chances that have literally a statistically probability of less than 0.0001% (which, if necessary, I could EASILY show statistic data to show why that would be an accurate number) to win, in order to get the game over, detracts significantly more from the game than would be to give up on it and find a solution. YOUR suggestion of suiciding detracts from the spirit of the game, and I would guess a majority of players agree with me.

9. Your idea that it would lead to the "bullying up of players who do not agree to terms" is unrealistic, as it would be no different than current games. People already decide to play doodle earth assassin games to find conclusions to stalemates, and those who disagree could just as easily bully up on a person.

And yes you're a friggin' douche once again for simply arguing definitions and going off-topic. As said I disagree with his suggestion, but at least I'm not spewing mindless BS.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
stale·mate Audio Help /ˈsteɪlˌmeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[steyl-meyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
–noun 1. Chess. a position of the pieces in which a player cannot move any piece except the king and cannot move the king without putting it in check.
2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock: Talks between union and management resulted in a stalemate.
–verb (used with object) 3. to subject to a stalemate.
4. to bring to a standstill.
–verb (used without object) 5. to be or result in a stalemate or standoff: Negotiations stalemated when new salary demands were introduced.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1755–65; late ME stale stalemate (whence AF estale) (appar. special use of stale1) + mate2]


—Synonyms 2. impasse, standoff, standstill.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
stalemate

To learn more about stalemate visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This stale·mate Audio Help (stāl'māt') Pronunciation Key
n.
A situation in which further action is blocked; a deadlock.
A drawing position in chess in which the king, although not in check, can move only into check and no other piece can move.

tr.v. stale·mat·ed, stale·mat·ing, stale·mates
To bring into a stalemate.


[Obsolete stale (from Middle English, probably from Anglo-Norman estale, fixed position, from Old French estal; see stale1) + mate2.]


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
stalemate

1765, in chess, from stale "stalemate" (1425) + mate "checkmate" (see checkmate). M.E. stale is probably from Anglo-Fr. estale "standstill" (see stall (2)). A misnomer, since a stale is not a mate. "In England from the 17th c. to the beginning of the 19th c. the player who received stalemate won the game" [OED]. Fig sense is recorded from 1885.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This stalemate

noun
1. a situation in which no progress can be made or no advancement is possible; "reached an impasse on the negotiations" [syn: deadlock]
2. drawing position in chess: any of a player's possible moves would place his king in check

verb
1. subject to a stalemate

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
stalemate1 [ˈsteilmeit] noun

a position in chess in which a player cannot move without putting his king in danger
Arabic: إسْتِحالَة التَّحَرُّك في الشَّطْرَنْج
Chinese (Simplified): （国际象棋）陷八僵局
Chinese (Traditional): (國際象棋)陷八僵局
Czech: pat
Danish: pat
Dutch: pat
Estonian: patt
Finnish: patti
French: pat
German: das Patt
Greek: ακινητοποίηση του παίκτη χωρίς να απειλείται ο βασιλι�
Hungarian: patt
Icelandic: pattstaða
Indonesian: remis
Italian: stallo
Japanese: 手詰り
Korean: (?체스? 말을 움직이면 지게 되는 상태의) 막다른 수
Latvian: (šahā) pats
Lithuanian: patas
Norwegian: patt
Polish: pat
Portuguese (Brazil): empate
Portuguese (Portugal): empate
Romanian: pat (la şah)
Russian: пат
Slovak: pat
Slovenian: pat
Swedish: remi
Turkish: pat, berabere



stalemate2 [ˈsteilmeit] noun

in any contest, dispute etc, a position in which neither side can win
Example: The recent discussions ended in stalemate. Arabic: نُقْطَة جُمود، مأزِق
Chinese (Simplified): 僵持
Chinese (Traditional): 僵持
Czech: mrtvý bod
Danish: hårdknude
Dutch: impasse
Estonian: ummik
Finnish: umpikuja
French: impasse
German: die Sackgasse
Greek: αδιέξοδο, ισοπαλία
Hungarian: holtpont
Icelandic: algjör kyrrstaða, sjálfhelda
Indonesian: kebuntuan
Italian: stallo, (punto morto)
Japanese: 行詰り
Korean: 난국, 정돈 상태
Latvian: strupceļš
Lithuanian: aklavietė
Norwegian: fastlåst situasjon
Polish: martwy punkt
Portuguese (Brazil): impasse
Portuguese (Portugal): impasse
Romanian: impas
Russian: тупик; мёртвая точка
Slovak: mŕtvy bod
Slovenian: pat
Swedish: dödläge
Turkish: açmaz, çıkmaz



Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Stalemate

Stale"mate`\, n. (Chess) The position of the king when he can not move without being placed on check and there is no other piece which can be moved

[FabledIntegral]

so you just agreed with me. You're a moron. Obviously the stalemate we're referring to is NOT chess.

[yeti_c]

Stalemates can and do happen... (and they can be broken (albeit with a lot of hard work and patience!)) it's part of the game when you have such a high level of skill as found on this website...

When you're round a board... you just get bored (or too pissed) and call it a day...

But here - as you only have to play once a day (or even week) then you carry on playing!!

Personally - this is one of the better solutions out there... however there is a problem...

When you say "roll up the points and move to another game" -> which points are you talking about? Just the points from the players who are eliminated? Whose score to you calculate from? (Also there is no need to keep rolling up the points - as you can only score points from eliminated players - so this avoids the abuse).

The way I see it - is that the game becomes paused - and then a new game is started with the remaining players... then when this game is one (or paused) the winner takes the points from the first games eliminated players - and the points from the new game(s) players. That way you don't need to bother about storing current rank values etc... you just calculate it all when the final game is concluded.

C.

Well the way i see it, is that the winner of the replacement game takes all the points of all players from both games .
So you will have to have register and store peoples points at the time they make agreement; As you click for unanimity you take a a score snapshot. (you know more than i how easy that is)
to be honest you would have to store all points even if you only took the points of the eliminated players from the first game as you would need to calculate all possibilities. I think if you did not take the original rank people could manipulate their score; throwing games to maximise the double-up?

what do you think Yeti... Is this feasible for code etc?

I think you're adding a lot of complexity that you don't need...

Going back to what I originally said I think that you can solve this without the need for doubling up... and you don't need to hold any scores - you just use the scores of the player at the end of the game (as currently)

So - it would work like this. (Example given 8 player classic game.)

1) Game 1... 5 players are eliminated (4 5 6 7 - 3 players left (1 2 3) - Stalemate agreed.
2) Game 1 now frozen - players who are eliminated aren't losing a game as it's in their eliminated list.
Players still playing don't lose a game as it gets moved to the recently finished list (but won't get archived until decider is finished)
3) A log is made in Game 1 saying that the game has been stalemated and a decider is playing at game #...
4) Game 2 now starts with 3 players (same rules as before)
5) Game 2 concludes with player 1 winning.
6) Player 1 gets points from Players 2 & 3 from Game 2.
7) Player 1 gets points from Players 4 5 6 7 & 8 from Game 1. (No points are lost for 2 & 3 in this game)
Game 1 & 2 get archived a week (or so) later.

The beauty of this is
a) no abuse - points are still the same regardless of how many games played.
b) It's extensible - the games can keep rolling collecting eliminated players until there is a clear winner.
c) IF there is an unfair drop on a decider game - you could stale that game out immediately (obviously with unanimous decision).
d) Once the coding is done - CC staff have nothing to do and the games just keep on rolling. (of course serious abuse may well get looked at)

C.

PS - Can we stop quoting soloman - I've had to add him to foe list so I can read this topic without too much clutter.

[Soloman]

so you just agreed with me. You're a moron. Obviously the stalemate we're referring to is NOT chess.

From what I've gathered from this threat, Soloman is a complete douche.

Stalemate: 2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock

The definition you gave refers to chess and chess only. As you said "Deadlocks occur only out of fear of loss but they do occur but they are not stalemates and can still be played through"

Therefore you are wrong by definition, you are attempting to argue minute details that have no pertinence to the discussion which search for solution. The only solution you've proposed is to give up - a very poor decision and nothing more than a waste of discussion in this thread. Instead of looking for a potential solution (whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant), you go off topic. You can criticize the specific flaws of what he described, or state that you would rather it not occur, but to have the absolute idiocy of claiming that one should just give up and loss is one that wastes my time when reading.

This game is indeed a spin-off of RISK. However, you are completely incorrect when you say that you should man up and take risks. This game is NOT about taking risks, as the designers of the gameboard obviously did not know the ideal strategy for the game, just as makers of video games like Starcraft don't know what the best strategies are for the game, pros figure it out.

Taking risks will more often than not be detrimental, not beneficial. It's like the lottery, more often than not you're going to lose. So don't even try to give that advice to tell people to end stalemates, as you're just telling people to take a risk (when others sit around) and let the others win. No one wants to get into a stalemate. However, for one to suicide (take a "risk") and hand the game to someone else who can pick up is retardation. Just as it's absolutely moronic to attack something like 3v5, or even 3v3. Sure, it's a "risk" and you may get lucky, but find out how many times you are going to succeed. You won't very often, and it's nothing more than showing the characteristics of a poor player.

This game is completely about playing your odds and statistics, no matter what. In a situation like Doodle Assassin, odds are if you don't make the move first, someone else will and if 7 other players make moves, odds are that ONE will get lucky, and therefore odds are you should do something. It has nothing to do with just trying to get lucky. Always play your odds, don't attack if it's not beneficial.

This post is dedicated to the retardation that Soloman has been spewing in this thread. I wouldn't mind if he had a legitimate point but he's just detracting from any possible real solutions.

Ironically enough the higher the rank the more they agree with this idea, I have threatened noone in this thread I am pointing out a matter of fact stalements are not real on this site and this thread is a detraction from the rest of the valid suggestions in this forum. To degrade to name calling and shows the maturity of the individual doing so. This idea has no grounding in reality as far as odds and statistics are concerned. Due to the random nature of random.org there is no way to accurately calculate the variable involved thus the fact that there are so many lopsided attacks and complaints about the dice.

It is very inane that someone would assume that the originaters of this game had no logic in the design of the game or how games would play out, the fact we are here playing on this forum shows they must have designed it pretty well for it to have survived and evolved to the state it is. The wordplay of the name Risk comes into the core of the game and the reason a site like random.org is used there is always a element of incalcuaable risk in every play due to the volatile nature of the dice and thus adding the dynamic of chance to the game.

Stalements are only in games where there is no chance just calculation such as checkers and chess. I go back to the point that this is a cop out option designed for those who cannot accept loss and refuse to take a chance, this ideology may increase your points in some cases but in the long run detracts from the spirit of the game. I go back to my point also that this would result in cycles of perpetual reset games and bullying to players whom do not agree to terms, this is not only a bad idea based on a nonexistant situation but also a pandoras box for abuse...

1. You are arguing the "definition" of a stalemate. You are WRONG. Look at the definition, there is no arguing against it. You *admitted* that there are deadlocks. The definition of a stalemate *includes* that of a deadlock. Therefore by logic you are WRONG.

2. You are arguing denotations vs connotations. Even if you were right in point 1, although by DEFINITION I just proved you wrong, it doesn't take away from the fact that anyone with common logic would be able to see the point he's trying to make.

3. You are a low rank. You obviously, by your moves, fail to see the gist of things. When everyone has 200 armies it's not necessarily a stalemate. However, you have said it yourself that there can *never* be a stalemate, and THUS by definition there could never be a deadlock. When everyone on the board, in an EXTREME situation (as I can use extreme situations as you consistently use the word "never") would have 3,000+ armies (as just happened in a speedgame stalemate recently that took over 3 hours to resolve), statistically there is no attacking move that could benefit you if you're surrounded by large armies. No "risk" could benefit you either. The dice come from random.org as you've noted, however there are no NEW numbers. All numbers are consistently being REUSED in a cycle. Therefore there's only a LIMITED number of possibilities of the dice, in those sequences. Unless there IS some sequence that could allow you to win 3,000 straight dice rolls, or even win 2,500 and lose 500 (which statistically speaking, there is near ZERO chance that it could happen within the 500,000 number list that is in the cycle), there is NO SUCH THING as ANY risk that could benefit you. In the chance that we were constantly using new numbers, one could hope for such a feat, however, with recycled numbers, it's not going to be possible.

4. In such a game, less extreme, and say there was only a 10% chance of winning by taking such a "risk" and 90% chance of losing, then there would STILL BE A PROBLEM WITH GAMEPLAY. Gameplay should reward those who use strategy, and of course the occasional risky endeavor, yet when you're shut down in a situation where you have to wait for OTHER players to be stupid, then there's a problem with the fundamentals of the game, and therefore your logic is STILL flawed.

5. You are not pointing out "false" statements, you are criticizing once again word usage that apparently only YOU find incorrect. I haven't found anyone else who agrees with you, even dictionary.com.

6. I never said the designers of the game had no logical basis. However I said that they ARE NOT the experts on such game matters. Show me some type of strategy game where the inventor knew the best strategy. Do you think the inventor of chess was the best chess player? Or do you think other players who studied it found the better strategies. Same thing with what I said in starcraft. Why do you think the makers of Halo aren't the best? Could they predict in Halo2 how retarded certain weapon combos would be? If they could, they would have balanced it from the beginning and wouldn't have to released patches. Originators very RARELY know the best balanced course for a game simply because they are already biased in how they think the game should be played out.

7. I would consider myself a high ranker, and I do NOT agree with his suggestion. However that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing with you on the fact you're contributing nothing to this thread. You can talk about the flaws in his ideas, etc., and want to shut that down, but you're just being a moron that's arguing that no solution should be found. EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, it has NO PLACE in this thread. This IS NOT a thread to debate on whether stalemates exist (although to friggin' shut you up I already PROVED you wrong by YOUR own definition), it's to debate whether a certain course of action should be enacted. I disagree, although I see where he is coming from.

8. Your own belief in taking chances that have literally a statistically probability of less than 0.0001% (which, if necessary, I could EASILY show statistic data to show why that would be an accurate number) to win, in order to get the game over, detracts significantly more from the game than would be to give up on it and find a solution. YOUR suggestion of suiciding detracts from the spirit of the game, and I would guess a majority of players agree with me.

9. Your idea that it would lead to the "bullying up of players who do not agree to terms" is unrealistic, as it would be no different than current games. People already decide to play doodle earth assassin games to find conclusions to stalemates, and those who disagree could just as easily bully up on a person.

And yes you're a friggin' douche once again for simply arguing definitions and going off-topic. As said I disagree with his suggestion, but at least I'm not spewing mindless BS.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
stale·mate Audio Help /ˈsteɪlˌmeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[steyl-meyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
–noun 1. Chess. a position of the pieces in which a player cannot move any piece except the king and cannot move the king without putting it in check.
2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock: Talks between union and management resulted in a stalemate.
–verb (used with object) 3. to subject to a stalemate.
4. to bring to a standstill.
–verb (used without object) 5. to be or result in a stalemate or standoff: Negotiations stalemated when new salary demands were introduced.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1755–65; late ME stale stalemate (whence AF estale) (appar. special use of stale1) + mate2]


—Synonyms 2. impasse, standoff, standstill.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
stalemate

To learn more about stalemate visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This stale·mate Audio Help (stāl'māt') Pronunciation Key
n.
A situation in which further action is blocked; a deadlock.
A drawing position in chess in which the king, although not in check, can move only into check and no other piece can move.

tr.v. stale·mat·ed, stale·mat·ing, stale·mates
To bring into a stalemate.


[Obsolete stale (from Middle English, probably from Anglo-Norman estale, fixed position, from Old French estal; see stale1) + mate2.]


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
stalemate

1765, in chess, from stale "stalemate" (1425) + mate "checkmate" (see checkmate). M.E. stale is probably from Anglo-Fr. estale "standstill" (see stall (2)). A misnomer, since a stale is not a mate. "In England from the 17th c. to the beginning of the 19th c. the player who received stalemate won the game" [OED]. Fig sense is recorded from 1885.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This stalemate

noun
1. a situation in which no progress can be made or no advancement is possible; "reached an impasse on the negotiations" [syn: deadlock]
2. drawing position in chess: any of a player's possible moves would place his king in check

verb
1. subject to a stalemate

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
stalemate1 [ˈsteilmeit] noun

a position in chess in which a player cannot move without putting his king in danger
Arabic: إسْتِحالَة التَّحَرُّك في الشَّطْرَنْج
Chinese (Simplified): （国际象棋）陷八僵局
Chinese (Traditional): (國際象棋)陷八僵局
Czech: pat
Danish: pat
Dutch: pat
Estonian: patt
Finnish: patti
French: pat
German: das Patt
Greek: ακινητοποίηση του παίκτη χωρίς να απειλείται ο βασιλι�
Hungarian: patt
Icelandic: pattstaða
Indonesian: remis
Italian: stallo
Japanese: 手詰り
Korean: (?체스? 말을 움직이면 지게 되는 상태의) 막다른 수
Latvian: (šahā) pats
Lithuanian: patas
Norwegian: patt
Polish: pat
Portuguese (Brazil): empate
Portuguese (Portugal): empate
Romanian: pat (la şah)
Russian: пат
Slovak: pat
Slovenian: pat
Swedish: remi
Turkish: pat, berabere



stalemate2 [ˈsteilmeit] noun

in any contest, dispute etc, a position in which neither side can win
Example: The recent discussions ended in stalemate. Arabic: نُقْطَة جُمود، مأزِق
Chinese (Simplified): 僵持
Chinese (Traditional): 僵持
Czech: mrtvý bod
Danish: hårdknude
Dutch: impasse
Estonian: ummik
Finnish: umpikuja
French: impasse
German: die Sackgasse
Greek: αδιέξοδο, ισοπαλία
Hungarian: holtpont
Icelandic: algjör kyrrstaða, sjálfhelda
Indonesian: kebuntuan
Italian: stallo, (punto morto)
Japanese: 行詰り
Korean: 난국, 정돈 상태
Latvian: strupceļš
Lithuanian: aklavietė
Norwegian: fastlåst situasjon
Polish: martwy punkt
Portuguese (Brazil): impasse
Portuguese (Portugal): impasse
Romanian: impas
Russian: тупик; мёртвая точка
Slovak: mŕtvy bod
Slovenian: pat
Swedish: dödläge
Turkish: açmaz, çıkmaz



Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Stalemate

Stale"mate`\, n. (Chess) The position of the king when he can not move without being placed on check and there is no other piece which can be moved

Maybe you are illiterate fabledintegral or just ignoring the vastness of the post the bulk of the definitions for stalement disagree with you notice the bolded portions...Key term is that no advancement possible and since moves are still possible in this game no stalemate possible...

[TheSupremeCourt]

Deadbeat/ surrender option

• An option that, when selected, reduces your turn length to 12 hours. Has no effect on anyone else

Know you're going to deadbeat/ want to surrender? This allows it to happen in half the time. I.e. it's a surrender option, but without the terminal abuses that would offer.

[jiminski]

I think you're adding a lot of complexity that you don't need...

Going back to what I originally said I think that you can solve this without the need for doubling up... and you don't need to hold any scores - you just use the scores of the player at the end of the game (as currently)

So - it would work like this. (Example given 8 player classic game.)

1) Game 1... 5 players are eliminated (4 5 6 7 - 3 players left (1 2 3) - Stalemate agreed.
2) Game 1 now frozen - players who are eliminated aren't losing a game as it's in their eliminated list.
Players still playing don't lose a game as it gets moved to the recently finished list (but won't get archived until decider is finished)
3) A log is made in Game 1 saying that the game has been stalemated and a decider is playing at game #...
4) Game 2 now starts with 3 players (same rules as before)
5) Game 2 concludes with player 1 winning.
6) Player 1 gets points from Players 2 & 3 from Game 2.
7) Player 1 gets points from Players 4 5 6 7 & 8 from Game 1. (No points are lost for 2 & 3 in this game)
Game 1 & 2 get archived a week (or so) later.

The beauty of this is
a) no abuse - points are still the same regardless of how many games played.
b) It's extensible - the games can keep rolling collecting eliminated players until there is a clear winner.
c) IF there is an unfair drop on a decider game - you could stale that game out immediately (obviously with unanimous decision).
d) Once the coding is done - CC staff have nothing to do and the games just keep on rolling. (of course serious abuse may well get looked at)

C.

PS - Can we stop quoting soloman - I've had to add him to foe list so I can read this topic without too much clutter.

I think you 'may' be correct Yeti!

It is probably easier to implement and with far less chance of abuse.

It is just that part of me likes the idea of the allure of a 'Big Points Victory*' for the lucky winner of the decider game; it gives reward for all the time invested in the Stalemate game.


It also adds a little more excitement to proceedings..
hmmm i am still pondering this... although your fine-tuning may well be the superior suggestion, it does rather change the tone of the proposal.

I would very much like to get another opinion too but so far all we have are dissenters, a crack-pot rogue chess-playing semantic 'genius' (who now appears to be stalking me), me and you!.. heheh I may have to let you have this one!

*i concede that, this may be what makes it susceptible to abuse.

[FabledIntegral]

so you just agreed with me. You're a moron. Obviously the stalemate we're referring to is NOT chess.

From what I've gathered from this threat, Soloman is a complete douche.

Stalemate: 2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock

The definition you gave refers to chess and chess only. As you said "Deadlocks occur only out of fear of loss but they do occur but they are not stalemates and can still be played through"

Therefore you are wrong by definition, you are attempting to argue minute details that have no pertinence to the discussion which search for solution. The only solution you've proposed is to give up - a very poor decision and nothing more than a waste of discussion in this thread. Instead of looking for a potential solution (whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant), you go off topic. You can criticize the specific flaws of what he described, or state that you would rather it not occur, but to have the absolute idiocy of claiming that one should just give up and loss is one that wastes my time when reading.

This game is indeed a spin-off of RISK. However, you are completely incorrect when you say that you should man up and take risks. This game is NOT about taking risks, as the designers of the gameboard obviously did not know the ideal strategy for the game, just as makers of video games like Starcraft don't know what the best strategies are for the game, pros figure it out.

Taking risks will more often than not be detrimental, not beneficial. It's like the lottery, more often than not you're going to lose. So don't even try to give that advice to tell people to end stalemates, as you're just telling people to take a risk (when others sit around) and let the others win. No one wants to get into a stalemate. However, for one to suicide (take a "risk") and hand the game to someone else who can pick up is retardation. Just as it's absolutely moronic to attack something like 3v5, or even 3v3. Sure, it's a "risk" and you may get lucky, but find out how many times you are going to succeed. You won't very often, and it's nothing more than showing the characteristics of a poor player.

This game is completely about playing your odds and statistics, no matter what. In a situation like Doodle Assassin, odds are if you don't make the move first, someone else will and if 7 other players make moves, odds are that ONE will get lucky, and therefore odds are you should do something. It has nothing to do with just trying to get lucky. Always play your odds, don't attack if it's not beneficial.

This post is dedicated to the retardation that Soloman has been spewing in this thread. I wouldn't mind if he had a legitimate point but he's just detracting from any possible real solutions.

Ironically enough the higher the rank the more they agree with this idea, I have threatened noone in this thread I am pointing out a matter of fact stalements are not real on this site and this thread is a detraction from the rest of the valid suggestions in this forum. To degrade to name calling and shows the maturity of the individual doing so. This idea has no grounding in reality as far as odds and statistics are concerned. Due to the random nature of random.org there is no way to accurately calculate the variable involved thus the fact that there are so many lopsided attacks and complaints about the dice.

It is very inane that someone would assume that the originaters of this game had no logic in the design of the game or how games would play out, the fact we are here playing on this forum shows they must have designed it pretty well for it to have survived and evolved to the state it is. The wordplay of the name Risk comes into the core of the game and the reason a site like random.org is used there is always a element of incalcuaable risk in every play due to the volatile nature of the dice and thus adding the dynamic of chance to the game.

Stalements are only in games where there is no chance just calculation such as checkers and chess. I go back to the point that this is a cop out option designed for those who cannot accept loss and refuse to take a chance, this ideology may increase your points in some cases but in the long run detracts from the spirit of the game. I go back to my point also that this would result in cycles of perpetual reset games and bullying to players whom do not agree to terms, this is not only a bad idea based on a nonexistant situation but also a pandoras box for abuse...

1. You are arguing the "definition" of a stalemate. You are WRONG. Look at the definition, there is no arguing against it. You *admitted* that there are deadlocks. The definition of a stalemate *includes* that of a deadlock. Therefore by logic you are WRONG.

2. You are arguing denotations vs connotations. Even if you were right in point 1, although by DEFINITION I just proved you wrong, it doesn't take away from the fact that anyone with common logic would be able to see the point he's trying to make.

3. You are a low rank. You obviously, by your moves, fail to see the gist of things. When everyone has 200 armies it's not necessarily a stalemate. However, you have said it yourself that there can *never* be a stalemate, and THUS by definition there could never be a deadlock. When everyone on the board, in an EXTREME situation (as I can use extreme situations as you consistently use the word "never") would have 3,000+ armies (as just happened in a speedgame stalemate recently that took over 3 hours to resolve), statistically there is no attacking move that could benefit you if you're surrounded by large armies. No "risk" could benefit you either. The dice come from random.org as you've noted, however there are no NEW numbers. All numbers are consistently being REUSED in a cycle. Therefore there's only a LIMITED number of possibilities of the dice, in those sequences. Unless there IS some sequence that could allow you to win 3,000 straight dice rolls, or even win 2,500 and lose 500 (which statistically speaking, there is near ZERO chance that it could happen within the 500,000 number list that is in the cycle), there is NO SUCH THING as ANY risk that could benefit you. In the chance that we were constantly using new numbers, one could hope for such a feat, however, with recycled numbers, it's not going to be possible.

4. In such a game, less extreme, and say there was only a 10% chance of winning by taking such a "risk" and 90% chance of losing, then there would STILL BE A PROBLEM WITH GAMEPLAY. Gameplay should reward those who use strategy, and of course the occasional risky endeavor, yet when you're shut down in a situation where you have to wait for OTHER players to be stupid, then there's a problem with the fundamentals of the game, and therefore your logic is STILL flawed.

5. You are not pointing out "false" statements, you are criticizing once again word usage that apparently only YOU find incorrect. I haven't found anyone else who agrees with you, even dictionary.com.

6. I never said the designers of the game had no logical basis. However I said that they ARE NOT the experts on such game matters. Show me some type of strategy game where the inventor knew the best strategy. Do you think the inventor of chess was the best chess player? Or do you think other players who studied it found the better strategies. Same thing with what I said in starcraft. Why do you think the makers of Halo aren't the best? Could they predict in Halo2 how retarded certain weapon combos would be? If they could, they would have balanced it from the beginning and wouldn't have to released patches. Originators very RARELY know the best balanced course for a game simply because they are already biased in how they think the game should be played out.

7. I would consider myself a high ranker, and I do NOT agree with his suggestion. However that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing with you on the fact you're contributing nothing to this thread. You can talk about the flaws in his ideas, etc., and want to shut that down, but you're just being a moron that's arguing that no solution should be found. EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, it has NO PLACE in this thread. This IS NOT a thread to debate on whether stalemates exist (although to friggin' shut you up I already PROVED you wrong by YOUR own definition), it's to debate whether a certain course of action should be enacted. I disagree, although I see where he is coming from.

8. Your own belief in taking chances that have literally a statistically probability of less than 0.0001% (which, if necessary, I could EASILY show statistic data to show why that would be an accurate number) to win, in order to get the game over, detracts significantly more from the game than would be to give up on it and find a solution. YOUR suggestion of suiciding detracts from the spirit of the game, and I would guess a majority of players agree with me.

9. Your idea that it would lead to the "bullying up of players who do not agree to terms" is unrealistic, as it would be no different than current games. People already decide to play doodle earth assassin games to find conclusions to stalemates, and those who disagree could just as easily bully up on a person.

And yes you're a friggin' douche once again for simply arguing definitions and going off-topic. As said I disagree with his suggestion, but at least I'm not spewing mindless BS.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
stale·mate Audio Help /ˈsteɪlˌmeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[steyl-meyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
–noun 1. Chess. a position of the pieces in which a player cannot move any piece except the king and cannot move the king without putting it in check.
2. any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock: Talks between union and management resulted in a stalemate.
–verb (used with object) 3. to subject to a stalemate.
4. to bring to a standstill.
–verb (used without object) 5. to be or result in a stalemate or standoff: Negotiations stalemated when new salary demands were introduced.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1755–65; late ME stale stalemate (whence AF estale) (appar. special use of stale1) + mate2]


—Synonyms 2. impasse, standoff, standstill.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
stalemate

To learn more about stalemate visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This stale·mate Audio Help (stāl'māt') Pronunciation Key
n.
A situation in which further action is blocked; a deadlock.
A drawing position in chess in which the king, although not in check, can move only into check and no other piece can move.

tr.v. stale·mat·ed, stale·mat·ing, stale·mates
To bring into a stalemate.


[Obsolete stale (from Middle English, probably from Anglo-Norman estale, fixed position, from Old French estal; see stale1) + mate2.]


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
stalemate

1765, in chess, from stale "stalemate" (1425) + mate "checkmate" (see checkmate). M.E. stale is probably from Anglo-Fr. estale "standstill" (see stall (2)). A misnomer, since a stale is not a mate. "In England from the 17th c. to the beginning of the 19th c. the player who received stalemate won the game" [OED]. Fig sense is recorded from 1885.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This stalemate

noun
1. a situation in which no progress can be made or no advancement is possible; "reached an impasse on the negotiations" [syn: deadlock]
2. drawing position in chess: any of a player's possible moves would place his king in check

verb
1. subject to a stalemate

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
stalemate1 [ˈsteilmeit] noun

a position in chess in which a player cannot move without putting his king in danger
Arabic: إسْتِحالَة التَّحَرُّك في الشَّطْرَنْج
Chinese (Simplified): （国际象棋）陷八僵局
Chinese (Traditional): (國際象棋)陷八僵局
Czech: pat
Danish: pat
Dutch: pat
Estonian: patt
Finnish: patti
French: pat
German: das Patt
Greek: ακινητοποίηση του παίκτη χωρίς να απειλείται ο βασιλι�
Hungarian: patt
Icelandic: pattstaða
Indonesian: remis
Italian: stallo
Japanese: 手詰り
Korean: (?체스? 말을 움직이면 지게 되는 상태의) 막다른 수
Latvian: (šahā) pats
Lithuanian: patas
Norwegian: patt
Polish: pat
Portuguese (Brazil): empate
Portuguese (Portugal): empate
Romanian: pat (la şah)
Russian: пат
Slovak: pat
Slovenian: pat
Swedish: remi
Turkish: pat, berabere



stalemate2 [ˈsteilmeit] noun

in any contest, dispute etc, a position in which neither side can win
Example: The recent discussions ended in stalemate. Arabic: نُقْطَة جُمود، مأزِق
Chinese (Simplified): 僵持
Chinese (Traditional): 僵持
Czech: mrtvý bod
Danish: hårdknude
Dutch: impasse
Estonian: ummik
Finnish: umpikuja
French: impasse
German: die Sackgasse
Greek: αδιέξοδο, ισοπαλία
Hungarian: holtpont
Icelandic: algjör kyrrstaða, sjálfhelda
Indonesian: kebuntuan
Italian: stallo, (punto morto)
Japanese: 行詰り
Korean: 난국, 정돈 상태
Latvian: strupceļš
Lithuanian: aklavietė
Norwegian: fastlåst situasjon
Polish: martwy punkt
Portuguese (Brazil): impasse
Portuguese (Portugal): impasse
Romanian: impas
Russian: тупик; мёртвая точка
Slovak: mŕtvy bod
Slovenian: pat
Swedish: dödläge
Turkish: açmaz, çıkmaz



Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Stalemate

Stale"mate`\, n. (Chess) The position of the king when he can not move without being placed on check and there is no other piece which can be moved

Maybe you are illiterate fabledintegral or just ignoring the vastness of the post the bulk of the definitions for stalement disagree with you notice the bolded portions...Key term is that no advancement possible and since moves are still possible in this game no stalemate possible...

Let me once again reemphasize the point that one does NOT need to use the part of a definition that is used in the MAJORITY sense. The word has multiple definitions, yet YOU seem to be clinging to CERTAIN definitions. It doesn't matter if 99% of the definitions said "impossible to find a winner," if ONE of the definitions say "situation where a winner is possible yet no moves on the board can be made to benefit players," then you can use the word "stalemate" to describe that. Why the hell you insist on using the "bulk" of definitions when EACH is valid, is beyond me. Notice the parts you bolded almost ALWAYS had "Deadlock" after it?

Notice how most of the stalemates refer to an impasse in negotiations? What does that mean? It means that no one is WILLING to make any further negotiations. Does that mean it's not possible? You'd have to be braindead to think so, of COURSE one side could give up and sign negotiations. So once again you are WRONG sir and the entire forum seems to agree with that statement. So going by YOUR logic, since the "bulk" of the people think you're wrong, you must be wrong!

You also never responded to my point that since we used recyclable dice that your logic on trying to take a hefty risk is impossible, ESPECIALLY if dice are above 500,000. You said a stalemate is never possible, however if you are using extreme conditions with dice over 500,000 with 6 players, then you can't use your logic on the "streaks" or random.org. Once again, you are wrong.

[Soloman]

so you just agreed with me. You're a moron. Obviously the stalemate we're referring to is NOT chess.

[

Stalemates are not possible if someone can win and there can always be a winner here your arguments about random.org are not grounded in reality the site is random.org for a reason you high ranks are afraid of losing I understand that but do not try and create a fictional scenerio to make yourself feel better about the fact someone has to lose and that someone other then yourself might win. There are no stalmate here past the mindset that if you attack you will lose and your fear of taking a risk in the game...

[GabonX]

If everyone in a game truly agreed to starting over then no damage would be done. If the voting is anonymous then I really can't find a negative part of this suggestion as a player will not be ganged up on because of their vote.

If this idea were to be implemented I do not think that the points would need to be doubled as nobody won the orriginal game. I would personaly rather that it counted as one game and not two.

[yeti_c]

PS - Can we stop quoting soloman - I've had to add him to foe list so I can read this topic without too much clutter.

C.

[jiminski]

If everyone in a game truly agreed to starting over then no damage would be done. If the voting is anonymous then I really can't find a negative part of this suggestion as a player will not be ganged up on because of their vote.

If this idea were to be implemented I do not think that the points would need to be doubled as nobody won the orriginal game. I would personaly rather that it counted as one game and not two.

thanks mate.. did you read Yeti's amendment? where only the points of any eliminated players are carried over?

[yeti_c]

I think you 'may' be correct Yeti!

It is probably easier to implement and with far less chance of abuse.

It is just that part of me likes the idea of the allure of a 'Big Points Victory*' for the lucky winner of the decider game; it gives reward for all the time invested in the Stalemate game.


It also adds a little more excitement to proceedings..
hmmm i am still pondering this... although your fine-tuning may well be the superior suggestion, it does rather change the tone of the proposal.

I would very much like to get another opinion too but so far all we have are dissenters, a crack-pot rogue chess-playing semantic 'genius' (who now appears to be stalking me), me and you!.. heheh I may have to let you have this one!

*i concede that, this may be what makes it susceptible to abuse.

I see what you mean - however - I do think the "big points victory" would just be abused...

Consider 8 people who know each other... they could stale out a load of games in a row - then play the 100th game as the decider... so instead of 1 person winning 150 points... they win 15000 points... (Obviously all of their mates go down to 1) (This is worst case - i.e. all points are calculated at the same time) if the points are calculated 1by1 - then it wouldn't be 15000 but still a fair amount!!!!

C.

[yeti_c]

I would personaly rather that it counted as one game and not two.

Also - necessary for the win/loss record too.

C.

[jiminski]

I think you 'may' be correct Yeti!

It is probably easier to implement and with far less chance of abuse.

It is just that part of me likes the idea of the allure of a 'Big Points Victory*' for the lucky winner of the decider game; it gives reward for all the time invested in the Stalemate game.


It also adds a little more excitement to proceedings..
hmmm i am still pondering this... although your fine-tuning may well be the superior suggestion, it does rather change the tone of the proposal.

I would very much like to get another opinion too but so far all we have are dissenters, a crack-pot rogue chess-playing semantic 'genius' (who now appears to be stalking me), me and you!.. heheh I may have to let you have this one!

*i concede that, this may be what makes it susceptible to abuse.

I see what you mean - however - I do think the "big points victory" would just be abused...

Consider 8 people who know each other... they could stale out a load of games in a row - then play the 100th game as the decider... so instead of 1 person winning 150 points... they win 15000 points... (Obviously all of their mates go down to 1) (This is worst case - i.e. all points are calculated at the same time) if the points are calculated 1by1 - then it wouldn't be 15000 but still a fair amount!!!!

C.

yeah .. well you know i agree and see the pitfall.. but it doesn't mean i'm happy about it!

[FabledIntegral]

so you just agreed with me. You're a moron. Obviously the stalemate we're referring to is NOT chess.

[

Stalemates are not possible if someone can win and there can always be a winner here your arguments about random.org are not grounded in reality the site is random.org for a reason you high ranks are afraid of losing I understand that but do not try and create a fictional scenerio to make yourself feel better about the fact someone has to lose and that someone other then yourself might win. There are no stalmate here past the mindset that if you attack you will lose and your fear of taking a risk in the game...

Way to ignore virtually every argument I gave. You just proved your stupidity by ignoring everything and reverting back to your original argument. Sorry Yeti, this will be the last quote, I'm going to foe him as well.

[jiminski]

I have included a vote and yetis refinement on the front page to try to organise the progression of the idea.

We should perhaps also vote on anonymity of those who vote for the 'Freeze Game' option... well lets' see if there is any interest first.

[Soloman]

wow what a lopsided poll not addressing the merits or validity of the idea but rather just bypassing whether more then the 4 of you like it and just assuming it is the way to go... try creating a poll based on whether even think that this is valid idea 1st before submitting one on how to apply changes to your imaginary scenerio...

[jiminski]

I can't see what he is saying but thank you to Soli; you are keeping the suggestion ever high on the front page!

Which poll option do you agree with by the way Soloman?

[Incandenza]

Of the various proposals bandied about over the years to end stalemates (including a couple floated by yours truly), this is the most innovative one I've seen, and probably the least apt to cause DiM to come in here and tell us all how 2 people with acres of free time on their hands could manipulate such a system.

Nice one, jim n' yeti. This would be a good way to take what already seems to be an extant way of handling deadlocks, especially in speed games, and formalizing it.

And I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: if you don't believe in the existence of stalemates, then I suppose that's your right. However, most of us have found that good players, often cautious and calculating by nature, will find themselves in a game that's hopelessly deadlocked, where one player cannot eliminate another without handing the game to the third on a silver platter, thus forcing all concerned to wait until someone either gets bored and suicides or gets bored and deadbeats. I personally have been in many games where this exact scenario happened (often with more than 3 people).

What I'm really saying is this: Solo, you've made your point. Continuing to argue with people in a thread that's trying to solve a problem that most people see with CC is not a good way to convince them of the rightness of your point of view. More to the point, until you've played in a hopelessly deadlocked no cards game that lasts more than a year, or a speed game that goes into round 35, then people will rightly challenge your point of view.

[jiminski]

thanks a lot Incan!

[lancehoch]

I think the poll results kinda speak for themselves.

[jiminski]

I think the poll results kinda speak for themselves.

agreed! it even got my vote

I'll leave it up for a few days and maybe we could vote on anonymity for the Freeze vote ?