27

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, ...


17

I know much more about Go than chess, so I don't know how accurate my guesses about chess endgames will be, but... I think chess tends to be at its simplest in the endgame (like Go), and there is little information in the endgame about how the rest of the game progressed (unlike Go). And, there are algorithms for winning (in some cases) that generalize to a ...


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

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 ...


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 . . . . . . . . ...


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 ...


6

There are no whole-board endgame databases because there are too many possible permutations in the end. Such an approach could not be handled with state-of-the-art computer systems. The good news is that endgame databases for confined, local situations do make sense and can be applied really well, the further the endgame has progressed. After you have ...


6

In general, king making is contentious. In my mind, it's best reserved for when it will allow ending a game "Now-ish" in order to either facilitate a different, more generally enjoyable game, or to allow players to leave. There are a few other conditions where I find it less than unacceptable. These basically boil down to "not letting A have a runaway ...


5

I don't know if they spend a lot of time doing point-value memorizing, but I would imagine that there is a reasonable amount of time spent studying and memorizing endgame tesuji. Counting is important to properly evaluate when the tesuji are profitable.


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

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

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.


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

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

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.


3

You've misunderstood the scoring principle. White is, as you explained, diving the board. But that has no impact on scoring by itself. We often say, misleadingly, "divide the board in 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 once you grasp it, it'...


3

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

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+...


3

If you do not force capture then it's very possible, trivial even, to have a stalemate. Even without though: From wikipedia: English draughts (American 8×8 checkers) has been the arena for several notable advances in game artificial intelligence. In the 1950s, Arthur Samuel created one of the first board game-playing programs of any kind. More recently, ...


2

If I don't mistake professionals learn a lot of typical local value of moves it's a way to play faster and correctly endgames I suppose.


2

Generally speaking, questions of etiquette should be decided within your group before you begin playing. If the players are all serious competitive gamers, they will try to win no matter how slim the chances are. Another big issue is the question of position: Is it better to guarantee getting second place, or try for a slim chance to win that if it fails, ...


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 ...


2

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


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. ...


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