Major revision, possibly turning this into a decent game:

After a placement, any two like-colored, diagonally adjacent stones must share at least one orthogonally adjacent, like-colored neighbor. No other placement restrictions are used.

On their turn, a player must place a stone or pass.

The game ends when both players pass in succession.

A player's score is the number of placements on empty stones, without the above restriction, that they would have to make in the final position in order to form a winning chain. The player with the lowest score wins. In the event of a tie, whoever passed
first wins. Passing first can be indicated by taking possession of a special token called "button".

Komi can be used instead of the pie rule to balance the game. Note that if a player forms a winning chain before the end, their score is 0 and their opponent's score is arguably infinite, although it can be given a finite value to improve the
effectivenes of komi if the need arises. Reasonable values in this case might be the number of empty points and the number of moves to form a winning chain before the opponent's last move, perhaps with a fixed penalty added to it.

This idea might work as a general pattern-building game system as well. Like here, placements that prevent the opponent from building the winning pattern (for some convenient definition of "prevent": on the whole board, with any group...) would be banned.

The resulting hybrid connection-territory games are to connection games what territory games are to annihilation games: they provide a scoring method to determine a winner on points when no sweeping victory has been claimed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You wrote I quote :
I've designed Paper and Pencil Go, Quaxtep, Yodd, Xodd, Ayu, Hyper, Loose, Konobi, Quentin, Brique, Vimbre, Kopano, Trisq, Sligo, Stoical Go, Alpha, Veletas, Whirlwind, Squer, Rhode, Cation, Morpheus, Lear, Flicker, Carteso, Rumbo and Linage.

Which one is not crappy game?
All are not only crappy games but above all plagiarized games.
And you dare because I was banished from bgg forum abstract to tell that vertical vs horizontal was not invented by me. By referring to Hex game.
Either you are dumb either you are of bad faith.
I invented the concept of capturing differently : one player can capture only vertically and his opponent vertically. Why is it interesting to break the capture in two? I let you answer to this question. We can use other dimensions (up-down, orthogonal-
diagonal or any other binary dimension.
In Hex game there is no capture at all.
In many games one player can move in one direction and the other on the opposite etc...
You are just trying to hide the fact that you plagiarized my idea.
It is not surprising that you waited so long to say that Hex game is similar to my idea.
I know all the tricks of the thieves and the "atajo de ladrones".

You have both you and Corey only one neuron.
History will show you are fake game designers.
History will that Hazen is the best game designer of this century.

Corey is so dumb that he can not get the flaw I pointed out to.
He has no idea that his game Meanderthal (I called it like this and he never mentioned that I was the inventor of the name) is EASILY SOLVABLE. Almost like tic tac toe.






--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

El domingo, 1 de enero de 2017, 23:43:41 (UTC+1), Moh Bel escribió:

I invented the concept of capturing differently : one player can capture only vertically and his opponent vertically. Why is it interesting to break the capture in two? I let you answer to this question. We can use other dimensions (up-down, orthogonal-

diagonal or any other binary dimension.

In Hex game there is no capture at all.

Carteso doesn't use that capturing method because there is no capture in Carteso.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 3:17:25 AM UTC-5, Luis Bolaños Mures wrote:

El domingo, 1 de enero de 2017, 23:43:41 (UTC+1), Moh Bel escribió:

I invented the concept of capturing differently : one player can capture only vertically and his opponent vertically. Why is it interesting to break the capture in two? I let you answer to this question. We can use other dimensions (up-down,

orthogonal-diagonal or any other binary dimension.

In Hex game there is no capture at all.

Carteso doesn't use that capturing method because there is no capture in Carteso.

Trick of the thieves.
Read this :A group, regardless of color, is owned by Vertical if it spans more rows than columns, and by Horizontal if it spans more columns than rows. If a group spans exactly as many rows as columns, it's owned by neither player.

What is owning versus capturing?
When you flip a token in Othello is similar to capturing it.
When you control a territory is similar to capturing land.
In any case you will finish by vomiting your theft.
You know why?
Because my concept does not fit with such crappy game Cartezero. Even i you revised it as you wish it will remain botched game.


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hazen I told you to only speak when spoken to. How soon we forget

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I think the following mechanism is finite and guarantees a final position without crosscuts:

On your turn, do one of the following:

a) choose a 2x2 area with at least one empty point and place a stone of your color on each empty point in that area, or

b) flip two enemy stones which are part of the same crosscut.

To flip a stone means to replace it with a stone of the opposite color.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

El viernes, 10 de julio de 2020, 3:45:37 (UTC+2), Luis Bolaños Mures escribió:

a) choose a 2x2 area with at least one empty point and place a stone of your color on each empty point in that area, or

This is only to preserve material balance; it's not necessary for decisiveness.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I think the following mechanism is finite and guarantees a final position without crosscuts:

Same for this one:

On your turn, do one of the following:

a) Place a regular stone of your color on an empty point.

b) Replace a regular enemy stone in a crosscut with a permanent friendly stone and a regular friendly stone in the same crosscut with a regular enemy stone.

If, at the start of your turn, you have no moves available, replace all permanent stones of both colors with regular stones of the same colors and then make a regular move.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I think the following mechanism is finite and guarantees a final position without crosscuts:

Same for this one:

On your turn, you will face one of these situations:

a) There are no crosscuts on the board. In this case, place a stone of your color on an empty point.

b) There are one or more crosscuts on the board. In this case, perform one or two swaps such that, after the last of them, no crosscuts remain on the board. A swap consists in replacing a friendly stone in a crosscut with an enemy stone and an
orthogonally or diagonally adjacent enemy stone with a friendly stone.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)