29

Your friend was wrong. There is no rule preventing a pawn from being promoted outside the normal move restriction rules (e.g. you can't leave your king in check).


20

The rules in my copy and on the official site are quite clear: If the active player has the dragon tile, he or she places it at the bottom of the draw pile and draws a tile from the top. If the active player does not have the dragon tile, he or she draws a tile from the top of the draw pile. Starting with the active player and moving clockwise, ...


10

Yes. Though it's rare, some games mix up what it means to win and to lose, because why not? Games typically treat everyone as either 100% winner or 100% loser, but it doesn't have to be that way. In real life, there are many situations where you don't just win or lose, and a lot of people are satisfied if they're able to maintain their situation. Some games ...


9

The answer by @RemcoGerlich is essentially correct. Some extra info below. For further reference see the Dutch book Drie tegen een is gemeen, that contains a mathematical proof that 3 vs. 1 kings is a draw (which predates the age of perfect knowledge endgame databases by almost a decade!). The answer depends crucially on both the board geometry and the king ...


8

As TimK pointed out, the situation could be but may not be a Seki but without a diagram to show to us, it's not easy for us to guess what happened. Seki : no one die, everyone live $$cm1 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | X . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X X O X . . . X . . . . . . . . ...


8

3 kings vs 1 king is usually not enough for force a win, because (as you discovered), you can't catch a king that can safely stay on the main diagonal. The rules say that 1 king vs 1 king (where neither king is immediately lost) is an immediate draw; 2 kings (or a king and a piece) vs 1 king is a draw if no captures occur within five moves, three kings (or ...


6

To truly meet with your criteria, there would have to be a ruleset that determines winning conditions as well as a ruleset that determines losing conditions, and some situation that does not fit either of those rulesets. The best example I can think of that comes close to what you're looking for is Saboteur (+expansion). A round of Saboteur can end in a ...


6

There's no such concept. The following are the win conditions for the red and blue teams from the rules: A team wins if a dwarf from that team creates the connection to the treasure and the way there isn't blocked by a door of the other color. A team wins if a dwarf from the other team creates the connection to the treasure, but the way there for his or her ...


5

Simple answer: There is no such thing as "non-fully walled territory". So far as the upper left is concerned, black has exactly two points: D10 and F10. All the rest is not territory, because it's not enclosed. Sure, it's all potential territory, but it only becomes actual territory when black takes that critical L11 point to actually enclose it. So if ...


5

This isn't really a finished game. If both players passed, then all of the points around E13 would count as dame just like the ones around H8, and wouldn't be territory for Black. This wouldn't happen in a serious game, so in a beginners' game, you would notice the problem during the scoring and probably just fix it.


5

I am a chess arbiter and I can confirm that this rule does not exist whatsoever in the FIDE rules of chess. The only restriction to promotion is if it's an illegal move.


5

Playing OTIC blocks both OW and WAG. OTIC starting at H3 will put the 'C' on H6, blocking the opponent from playing W on I6.


5

This game isn't finished. Black's group shouldn't be able to die, so Black will have some territory, but the area between the white and black walls hasn't been decided yet, so the players need to keep playing. Also, a black invasion in the lower right is likely to succeed, so that area isn't white territory either.


4

Some players will do anything to try to prevent them losing... From the position above, white promotes and black may as well resign. White can make a 2nd queen and give one of them up if necessary to prevent black's attack with the d and e pawns. You won't even need to do that though. If black moves Ke4 his pawn on d5 is pinned, if he plays d5-d4 you go Qf3+...


4

From the basic rules on Wikipedia: Territory Definition: In the final position, an empty intersection is said to belong to a player's territory if, after all dead stones are removed, all stones adjacent to it or to an empty intersection connected to it are of that player's color. By this definition, the lower right region would score for White, the 2 ...


4

Let's set a lower bound on the likelihood of winning with doubles, by simply ignoring all cases where it is impossible to win without doubles. Assumption: All board positions considered are equally likely. This is probably not true, but will approach truth in longer games. Consider the case of two men only left on the board, both in the home court, and not ...


4

You've misunderstood the scoring principle. White is, as you explained, dividing the board. But that has no impact on scoring by itself. We often say, misleadingly, "divide the board into areas", but we should really say "stake out territory by surrounding it with walls". Only then can you count the score. It is a bit tricky at first, but ...


4

Magic: the Gathering has 3 end states for a player: win, lose, and draw. With certain optional rules, a game can end with some players winning, some players losing, and some players drawing. In particular, the Limited Range of Influence Option has a clause that says If the effect of a spell or ability states that the game is a draw, the game is a draw for ...


3

President, a card game (also known by many other names). The game has many variants and it can be played continuously. Each round has one winner (the president) and one loser (the scum).


3

It only includes Ships and Trains. The English rulebook is a bit unclear on this point, but other translations make it clear. The specific wording form the English rulebook: When any one player’s supply of plastic pieces contains six pieces or fewer (regardless of their type), each player, including that player, gets two more turns, after which the game ...


2

This situation is called Seki. Scoring depends on the ruleset you're using.


2

I believe I know a game that matches your query. One Night Ultimate Werwolf has possibility of such scenario in one particular case when Tanner character is used in the game. An excerpt from the rules: GAME END After just one night and one day... The village team wins: If at least one Werewolf dies. Even if one or more players who are not ...


1

It's impossible to get into that situation. Please review how to handle the situation when you run out of cards.


1

There's also a subset of cooperative/competitive games, where a team of players will be pitted against another "team", generally a single player. Fantasy Flight does a lot of these games: in Middle Earth Quest, for instance, a team of several players (the "good guys"; think The Fellowship in LotR, except the game takes place prior to the main trilogy) unites ...


1

Clue (or Cluedo) is close to your question, especially as we play it at my house. At the end of the game there are three categories of players. at most 1 winner (the person who solves the puzzle) possibly everyone can lose (people who declare they've solved the puzzle, but have an incorrect solution.) people who haven't attempted to guess the solution. ...


1

Winning and losing seems like a binary question. And at the core of this argument, you have to define what a win and a loss is. Usually, you're defining the win condition and not the lose condition (though, this isn't always the case, such as NetRunner, which has you lose the game if you take too much Grip damage or if you run out of a deck as the Corp). ...


1

Actually there is a game wich has that kind of ending. It is called Shadow Hunter. In the beginning people get a random card (hidden for the other players) with a character on it and a win condition associated. There are three factions : Shadows : They have to "kill" all the Hunters Hunters : They have to "kill" all the Shadows Neutral : Each one has a ...


1

I haven't found any and here is why I think that is. A situation such as in Nexus Ops where the game ends as soon as 1 player is eliminated could be re-imagined that the victor is the player who defeated an other and they are the loser, everyone else was just there. To me it does not sound like an enjoyable mechanic to be the actual result of a game, but ...


1

There is never any difference in restrictions when a pawn queens, regarding pawns in the same file behind it. (Of course you can't overtake the pawn in front) [my rating: 1920]


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible