Ranting in Off Topic

ID:121782
 
Dec 10 2011, 10:27 am
Keywords: artemis, knight, lugia319
Why are people so thick when it comes to playing "The Knight"? Look guys, the knight's move is defined as 2 moves along either the x-axis or the y-axis. That's the first part of the move. So you must go something like this

^
|
^ Either Up/Down 2
|
X

<- <- X Or Left/Right 2

THEN you move perpendicular to that axis. Seems simple right? APPARENTLY NOT.

Because the knight is airborne in chess for the first part of its move, people assume that you can move, say left one and up two because it results in the same movement. BUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME MOVEMENT. The path is different, making them different moves.

When people play Casual, they complain that there must be a bug because they can't go to places they assume they should be able to go. Something like this

K - Knight
o - Intended Move
x - destroyed tile

. x .
. . o
K . x

The move is illegal because you have to run past a destroyed tile before you make the move. No, you cannot move up one and right two because THAT IS NOT HOW THE KNIGHT MOVES. The knight has to make the two tile move FIRST then move perpendicular to that axis.

It's not a bug, and I've explained this several times. I've explained this several times, and I even put in the help files (which people ignore? I guess?) that you must move TWO TILES IN A CARDINAL DIRECTION FIRST AND THEN ONE TILE PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION YOU TRAVELED!

Look, even without me telling you all of this, if the knight could hop over tiles in casual, wouldn't it be the same as in The Knight's Tour? Why would I even offer the option to switch modes if they were the same game? Seriously!
#1 Dec 10 2011, 10:35 am
Try explaining to a ten-year old kid who you've decided to watch for an hour why they cant(when checked) move the king to a space that also puts it in check AND THEN move it once more from said spot to another spot until its not in check anymore,WHAT?! try explaining that because i dont even know if i explained well enough.
#2 Dec 10 2011, 10:49 am
No, you cannot move up one and right two because THAT IS NOT HOW THE KNIGHT MOVES. The knight has to make the two tile move FIRST then move perpendicular to that axis.

No, that *is* how the knight moves. In chess the knight can move to its destination whether there are obstacles in the way or not. You're defining new rules for how the move works.

You could add some overlays to make it more clear. You could always show something like this:

// k-+.....
// |.v.....
// +>......
// ........
// ........
// ........
// ........
// ........


The arrows would show that the move of two spaces occurs first. You could change the colors of the arrows to indicate which moves are valid.
#3 Dec 10 2011, 10:57 am
No, the knight has to move two tiles first. It's literally how the knight's move is defined. The part that confuses people is the "airborne" part which means that the destination is the same if you move up one and right two. But technically, you're moving right two and up one.

I mean, it's even on diagrams of how the knight moves. They always go two tiles in the cardinal directions first and then one perpendicular to that direction.

I have not modified the actual move, I've just removed the airborne part of the move, meaning you actually have to "walk" across the ground. And if there is a pawn in your way and you have to "walk" past it, you can't because you can only capture pieces in your way.

And I am adding pictures soon. I just need to convert my help files to browse and then create the pictures (which I am doing today, along with a name change. Classic mode will be the game, The Knight's Tour will be what was known as "Classic" mode)
#4 Dec 10 2011, 11:01 am
In actual chess play it wouldn't matter if the knight moved one square and then two... the legal destination squares are the same, and there is never any consequence to which squares the knight passes over en route. All the rules actually care about is where the knight starts and where it ends up.

A person could have risen to the rank of chess grandmaster and never contemplated the question of what order the two and one squares have to be, so it's odd that you're ranting that people in a casual chess-derived game are having a hard time grappling with it.
#5 Dec 10 2011, 11:03 am (Edited on Dec 10 2011, 11:10 am)
That said, if you want to make it more obvious, I'd consider replacing "destroyed" tiles with "blocked" tiles (put a tall barrier there)... because honestly, it's not the least bit intuitive to me why a knight shouldn't be able to move past a tile that's destroyed/removed when their movement is defined as jumping.

Also, maybe instead of emphasizing that the game works like this "because that's how the knight moves in chess. Literally. That's the rules.", I'd focus on what the limitation means for the game.

Trying to convince people that the rule is important BECAUSE CHESS!!! is a losing battle. But if it makes the game better, that's a different story.
#6 Dec 10 2011, 11:09 am
In chess, a knight could make this move:

// kXX
// XX.


The knight doesn't jump forward two, then take a step to the side. They just go right to the destination (provided it's open). It's easier to show graphically as two moves forward and one to the side:

   +--+--+
      |
+     +     +
|     |     |
+--+--o--+--+
|     |     |
+     +     +
      |
   +--+--+


   +     +
   |     |
+--+--+--+--+
   |  |  |
   +--o--+
   |  |  |
+--+--+--+--+
   |     |
   +     +


One step in a direction followed by two to the side causes the paths to cross. It's cleaner to explain the other way but there's no difference because there's no concept of being "airborne" or "stepping".
#7 Dec 10 2011, 11:15 am
But you're describing two different moves, when the reality is that the knight only has one move.
#8 Dec 10 2011, 11:18 am
Lugia, the reality is that the knight starts in one square and ends in another square. For consistency chess terminology traditionally describes the method for determining that square in the way you've fixated upon, but all the game of chess cares about is that the destination is legal.

You've introduced a wrinkle to the game that makes the route important. Okay. So you're going to have to take it upon yourself to emphasize the route. Put a graphical guide in. (Translucent arrows moving two squares up and one square over, for instance.) You're going to have to lead players by the hand here because even experienced chess players won't necessarily have internalized the (unnecessary to play) idea that the order is important.
#9 Dec 10 2011, 11:26 am
Also, I've found sources that describe the knight's move as "first one step in a horizontal or vertical direction, and then one step diagonally in an outward direction"... yet another way of arriving at the same legal destination squares.

Which is again to say that the actual game of chess doesn't care about the route. Any way it's described "three squares in an L-shape", "two steps in one direction and then one step perpendicularly", or this one... it's all just different ways of teaching people to calculate the legal destinations at a glance.

The actual game mechanics only care about the destination. The ways of describing the move are just mnemonics for human players.