First of all, thank you for all your feedback. I do
recognize that I should have been more flexible regarding SU's
approaches for a rapprochement. Kyle has a point in that I don't
have the morale for accusing others of sticking too long with
their alliances. But regarding the reaction to the BI attack, I
must say I would have done the same again. If I'm under attack
of a superior coalition and I don't see any diplomatic avenues
open, I always go for the strategy of creating imbalances in the
coalition by favouring one of the sides.



Hi Joao, aiming for such imbalances is common practice. But it's
rather less common for players going as far as giving up all
resistance vis-à-vis one party.



I'm not saying that such an extreme approach cannot work. It's just
that in combination with your other decisions, I believe it was
destined to fail.





The point
here is that, in my opinion, the spirit of the game is to put
strategic considerations before personal considerations about
players' abilities, style or game approach. From my point of
view, these should be a blank paper when the game starts and
evolve as the game goes on (that's why I favour gunboat games).






I definitely subscribe to a clean slate approach when it comes to
playing a game with folks I've encountered in previous games.
However antagonistic that past experience may have been, I approach
the new game in as unprejudiced and open-minded manner as possible.
Much as I consider a game a self-contained unit and do not care what
my actions within that game might mean for my reputation following
the game.



It's not
only that other players were able to forge relationships that
almost seemed unnatural to the game, it's also that some players
feared having alliances with me because they knew that sooner or
later I would stab them if they don't stab me first - well,
isn't that the whole point of playing?





The point of the game is winning. Not stabbing. Though in all
likelihood, you'll have to engage in some of the latter to attain
the former.



Though actually in my recent 1900 solo, I only stabbed one in the
game. Most of the time, it was I who got stabbed, but just happened
to gain the upper hand in the ensuing melée. It's not like I
actually wanted to get stabbed (as Bismarck masterfully got Napoleon
III to stab him in 1870, but won the ensuing Franco-German War). But
it all worked out nicely enough. Sadly can't claim the brilliant
foresight of Otto von Bismarck.






This is why I do hope the next 1936 game I play is
in a tournament context, where by definition only one player can
win and therefore "soloism", which for me is equivalent to Dip's
spirit, is encouraged.



Quite. The 1936 tournament we're planning shall be a sweet
social-darwinistic affair. Qualifying for the championship game will
take a few elbows. The more first round boards we can set up
(seven would be ideal, we've currently got four GMs), the more
"soloist" shall things become.



Though with the right qualification rules, the scramble for first
place will be bound to be intense. Much as for Joao, this is music
to my ears! Looking forward to the show.




Another option is to establish a
DIAS only rule. In this particular case, it would have forced
the game to continue, since Jimmy says he was determined to
eliminate me and Dirk really wanted a 3-way, not a 4 or 5-way
draw, which means that I, Dan and Kyle would have to be
eliminated and that BGI would have to find a 17, 17, 16 formula.
If in that scenario one of them wouldn't have tried the solo, in
a variant with untested stalemate lines, well, my faith in Dip
would diminish a lot





Any player still in a game can effectively turn it into a DIAS-only
game. He just needs to hold out.



Cheers,



Charles