NoPunIn10Did wrote:jay65536 wrote:The point of the first 3 conditions is not that anyone who holds for 3 years should be able to declare a draw. The point of all 4 conditions combined, though, is that the game should be so deadlocked (as per 4a or b) that one player is ALLOWED by the other players to play identical moves for all that time while simultaneously there are few or no centers changing hands. And the proposal needs to have some kind of automated trigger condition for someone to declare a draw, so I think that's as good as any.
What I'm saying is that the no-moves condition isn't a good measure of whether the stalemate has happened or not. It'd be too easy to get into a scenario where the stalemate is never called. I'm less worried about someone exploiting it.
Ahh, OK, I see your point. I guess I'm stuck on 3 things:
1. I can't imagine a scenario like the one you were talking about upthread. It's not the same as what in my head I call an "active stalemate"; it's something weaker but still a stalemate-type scenario, I guess? Can you give me an example?
2. I think if people wanted to force a draw, the position was truly so deadlocked that it should sensibly be a draw, and this rule was in place, people would be able to position their units in such a way that they could fulfill this rule. I wonder if there is any way to get actual evidence of this--if dipsy is still following the thread, maybe there is some sample of games where DGP was called that we could analyze to see how big a deal NoPun's point is?
3. In order to have this kind of rule, there needs to be some trigger where a player may unilaterally declare DIAS. What would be a better trigger to base the rule around, than a position that is so deadlocked that someone can go several years without having to change their moves?