Talk:Lines of Action
|WikiProject Board and table games||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
I just noticed as I scanned the list of uploaded images that there were seven diagrams entitled loa1.jpg to loa7.jpg. Who created these images? Are they used elsewhere? A search on "lines action" does not find any article about LOA except the one that I created myself. It is not altogether pleasant to think that I am duplicating someone else's work from an article I can't find.
Anyway, I incorporated six of the diagrams into my article. Thanks to whomever. --Karl Juhnke
Good page, but with one important error. With simultaneous connection, the standard rule is that the game is a draw (Soucie's original intention), and this is used in the Computer Olympiad and Mind Sports Olympiad. [The second edition of Gamut of Games corrected the error by Sackson]. A win for the moving player is an optional rule, used only occasionally (eg. NOST).
While Mona and YL are likely the strongest LoA entities (depending on the rate of play), the strong program MIA (and link) should also be mentioned. -- Darse Billings. (circa 2003)
- Darse, I've incorporated your suggestions, but are you sure you don't have it turned around, i.e. that the first edition of GoG called simultaneous connection a draw and the second corrected it to be a win for the moving player? That's what I thought but maybe I had it reversed. I will verify the current wording of the article when I have a chance. --Fritzlein 01:45 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- There are varying reports, but apparently Soucie defined a simultaneous connection to be a draw originally, and then changed his mind later (as explained in the second edition of GoG). Regardless, games evolve over time, and the draw rule is more common because it is more logical. The object of the game is to form one connected group. For example, if you capture an opponent's last outlier and you have two groups, the opponent wins. Saying that the opponent now loses if you only have one group is inconsistent and illogical. That's why a draw is the fairest outcome. (Trying to eliminate all draws was fruitless anyway, due to draws by repetition). -- Darse Billings (26 Jun 2010)
The images curently illustrating this article have no information on their sources nor copyright status. If anyone can add such information to the image pages, it would be appreciated. For more information on Wikipedia image use policies, see Wikipedia:Images and linked pages. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 21:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've tagged the images I created as creative commons share-alike. I guess I can't do anything about the other, older ones I didn't create. --Fritzlein 18:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Someone care to put up a graphic on a winning position, when the game is done? Do the pieces have to line up vertically, horizontally, diagonally or in any formation? 188.8.131.52 19:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, the pieces don't have to line up in any way, they just have to all be in a contiguous blob of any shape. --Fritzlein 14:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- While the article text describes a winning position sufficiently to answer the above question, I've uploaded an image of a winning move and added it to the article. --Ds13 16:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This section mentions a diagram "below", but I can't seem to find that diagram?
Up to 2004, the winner of the annual email tournament run by Dave Dyer was generally considered to be the reigning world champion. Those winners should probably be listed above the MSO winners.
The MSO tournament does not have the same stature because not all of the strongest players travel to compete in the MSO.
Historical note on Mona and YL
The computer programs Mona and YL were the first programs to surpass all humans in playing strength (they were developed at about the same time).
Mona defeated all of the top human players, and won the de facto world championship email tournament in 2000, with a perfect score in both the preliminary round and the finals. As a result, computers were forbidden from participating in future championships. (Mona was later retired from competition, having won every game it ever played against a human opponent).
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/%7Edarse/LOA Billings, D. and Björnsson, Y. (2003). Search and Knowledge in Lines of Action. Advances in Computer Games 10 http://www.boardspace.net/loa/english/tournaments.html
Having only MIA mentioned on the wiki page is not representative, as that program rose to the top years later. -- Darse Billings (26 Jun 2010)