Lyngc, stack of 7? TZAAR, DVONN, LYNGK

31 replies. Last post: 2021-03-15

Reply to this topic Return to forum

Lyngc, stack of 7?
  • ypercube ★ at 2017-10-07

    I won this game with a stack of 7 (4 colours + 3 grey):

    Is this allowed by the rules?

  • Ferdinandinho at 2017-10-08

    the rulebook doesnt mention it specifically, but I think the intent of the designer is clear: the stack has to consist of exacly 6 pieces.

  • mmKALLL ★ at 2017-10-08

    Wait, that's clear intent? I would interpret it as 6 or more - not that I'm good at the game by any means, though.

  • ypercube ★ at 2017-10-08

    Related to this issue, is a rule that seems to imply that we can move a grey piece on top of a coloured piece:

    > If it happens that a player completes a stack of 6 pieces with a neutral piece on top, it does not count as a win. …

    But this is not implemented in golem. I can't move a grey piece on top of another piece.

  • Zugzwang at 2017-10-08

    @ypercube: “neutral piece” != the gray joker/wild piece.

    Neutral pieces are any stacks topped with a color not yet claimed by a player. The jokers are never claimed.

    Regarding the original question:

    I hope the programmers can fix this before any more games are affected.

  • Richard Malaschitz ★ at 2017-10-08

    1. It is not possible (More than 6 stones in stack). I receive email from author of game (Kris Burm) after implementation of Lyngk (and Google mark this mail as spam). I return last move in this game.

    2. Grey piece is not neutral piece according to rules. It is Joker piece. Rules:

  • Zugzwang at 2017-10-08

    Here is the relevant section in the rules:

    “White” is distinguished from Ivory. White is actually Gray here at LG (understandably confusing):


    1/  The 3 white pieces must be considered as jokers, i.e. they have the potential to represent any of the 5 active colors. These joker pieces are passive. They cannot be used to play with; they may only be moved as part of a stack”

  • ypercube ★ at 2017-10-08

    @Zugzwand and @Richard, thnx for the clarifications. I had “joker” confused with “neutral”.

  • ypercube ★ at 2017-10-08

    Richard, when you undid the last move, it seems I lost (perhaps on time?) although the game never appeared in my game list.

    It should be my turn to play but I just got the message that I had lost the game.

  • _syLph_ at 2017-12-29

    Still not fixed. I was of course relying on him not being able to make that move.

  • Ray Garrison ★ at 2018-01-18

    Does anyone know if this has been fixed?

  • Rumpelfamilie at 2018-01-19

    It is not.

  • William Fraser at 2019-01-25

    Bump.  I thought this had been fixed (I don't begrudge the game, as I did not feel like I was ahead, but I didn't think that move was going to end it).

  • Galdian at 2019-01-26

    Oh, I thought it is legal, if Richard can undone the move, please go ahead :)

  • Ray Garrison ★ at 2019-03-15

    this is still not fixed, and I consider it a major bug that should be fixed right away.  It can affect strategy.  Sometimes I have calculated lines where the opponent can't get a six stack but can get a seven stack, and I tend to avoid those lines because I don't want the opponent to play the seven stack for an automatic illegal win that would then need to be appealed to the webmaster to revert to the last legal position.  Just make it illegal to make a stack of seven (or eight!)  OR change the rules of the game to allow larger stacks.

  • Ray Garrison ★ at 2019-03-15

    I just won this game by making a stack of seven (illegal win!)  but I did have a legal win on the same move (same stack captures the red/white duo on bottom of board).  Just wanted to point out that the bug is still not fixed

  • Ray Garrison ★ at 2019-03-19

    And again, a stack of seven (I could have also played stack of six)

  • Ray Garrison ★ at 2019-03-19

    Has anyone ever made a stack of eight?

  • William Fraser at 2019-03-19

    All 3 jokers in one stack?  Without winning earlier? That sounds difficult to manage, except by agreement.

  • Ray Garrison ★ at 2019-03-21

    I think it is not as difficult as you imagine, but hopefully the bug will be fixed before we find out!  If you look at the two examples I give above, I have all three jokers in the final stack in both cases.

  • psikonauta at 2019-04-30

    A stack of seven (I had a legal win also)

  • Ray Garrison ★ at 2019-10-05

    I won a very difficult game today.

    with a very good player, Ferdinandinho

    The game went all the way to zugzwang where he had to pass twice,  and no one could make a stack of six.

    However, before the zugzwang, In order to win the game, I had no choice but to allow him the chance to make a stack of seven.  He could have done so at move 22.  He told me that the system was allowing that move, but he honorably did not play that move.

    I do not know much about coding, but shouldn't this be an easy bug to fix?

  • ypercube ★ at 2020-04-26

    It just happened, in the current championship.

    I lost a game to a stack of 7.

    Richard, can you roll back the game one move?

  • ypercube ★ at 2020-04-26

    it's game 2154679

  • William Fraser at 2020-06-08

    Here's a game with a stack of 9.  We decided to play it out, and what happened was that when I played the last move, it through an ArrayIndexOutOfBounds exception and wouldn't let me play.


  • ypercube ★ at 2020-06-20

    Another game with a stack of 7, in the current championship (17).

    Play is allowed to continue (!) after the stack of 7 appears.

    championship 17 - Dasan vs Cassiel

    Richard, can you please fix the rules of the game and not allow a move that creates a stack of 7+ stones?

  • Schaapmans at 2020-06-22

    The game with William Fraser is this one:

    I hope it will get fixed. Appartently according to the rules a stack of 7 should not be allowed. Or since it is the highest stack win. Now William had to resign, because we could not finish the game ;-)

  • ypaul21 at 2020-06-26

    I just saw this thread, and after reading it, I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the right version of the rules. In connect6, overlines count as a win, so you need to make 6 or more in a row to win. My first interpretation for this game was also 6 or more disks.

    Has Kris Burm ever officially said that it has to be a stack of exactly six pieces? If yes, then is creating a stack higher than six illegal, or is it just a dead stack that stays on the board, possibly consuming more disks if it gets a chance? If no, could we just say that this current implementation is correct?

    I personally prefer the rule than says that it's a win with six or more disks, if only because the two alternatives just feel unnatural to me, but I probably wouldn't mind anything as long as there's a consensus.

  • ypercube ★ at 2020-06-26

    If I remember well, the official rule is that stack of 7 or more should not be allowed.

  • ypaul21 at 2020-06-26

    Do you happen to remember where you've read that? I'm just curious because it feels like this isn't mentioned at all in a copy of the rule book that I found online, but I somehow feel like it's too obvious a rule to miss.

  • SOLFAREMI at 2021-03-15

    In one of the game I'm currently playing, neither my opponent nor I could do a stack of 7. It was not a playable move. I guess this means the bug has been fixed. Many thanks to anybody who did that!

Return to forum

Reply to this topic