Comments on Sons of Steve Garvey: 3DT3: Round 6

True Mr. Customer. IV-A-2 gives us the same optio...

2009-11-11T13:56:31.802-08:00

True Mr. Customer. IV-A-2 gives us the same options as IV-D-1. I didn't see it earlier when I did my write up but it also gives us two options to win. I guess Dusty and I were thinking along the same lines, just in different directions.

Actually, we may be OK even if it goes in A row. ...

2009-11-11T13:12:02.251-08:00

Actually, we may be OK even if it goes in A row. Since 1 is taken, I guess it would default to 2, which should also be unbeatable, if I'm calculating correctly.

@Dr. Geek If we can keep our strategy coordinated...

2009-11-11T13:10:16.035-08:00

@Dr. Geek

If we can keep our strategy coordinated, then they did. Last I checked, though, the vote was tied between rows A and D. I'd switch mine, but that's the price of being early to the polling booth.

So did the Sons shoot themselves in the foot with ...

2009-11-11T12:51:03.969-08:00

So did the Sons shoot themselves in the foot with their "rules"?

Q7's plan sounds good to me.

2009-11-11T12:11:01.100-08:00

Q7's plan sounds good to me.

Your explanation affirms what I thought. Of cours...

2009-11-11T11:58:34.483-08:00

Your explanation affirms what I thought. Of course, I paid considerably less attention to the rules that you; therefore, I would've never come up with that strategy.

I see solutions for both Quad's and Dusto's moves ...

2009-11-11T11:56:53.880-08:00

I see solutions for both Quad's and Dusto's moves that are unblockable. We're only vulnerable to the democractic factor.

I'm pretty sure we can't be stopped, so I'll just ...

2009-11-11T11:52:41.440-08:00

I'm pretty sure we can't be stopped, so I'll just spell out my thought process so it's more clear.

Reasoning behind IV-D-1:
Moving in IV-D-1 sets up a four level vertical win (IV-D-1, III-C-1, II-B-1, I-A-1). The Sons's next move has to be in levels I or II. No matter where they move, they won't create a 3 in a row situation that forces us to block. This means that we will have either the vertical win described before available, or we'll have the horizontal win on Level II Row A available. They can only block one of our possible ways to win.

Here's the series of moves as I see it playing out.

Option #1:
Readers #6 IV-D-1
Sons #7 II-A-3 or 4
Readers #7 III-C-1
Sons #8 III-A-2
Readers #8 II-B-1 WIN!

Option #2:
Readers #6 IV-D-1
Sons #7 II-B-1
Readers #7 II-A-3
Sons #8 IV-A-2
Readers #8 II-A-4 WIN!

Hopefully this makes sense. IV-D-1 FTW!

My attack move was different, but I see where Q7 i...

2009-11-11T11:51:36.905-08:00

My attack move was different, but I see where Q7 is going with this and like it.

The Sons can't complete the Level IV Row A win for...

2009-11-11T11:40:24.373-08:00

The Sons can't complete the Level IV Row A win for 4 moves.

Remember, they are only allowed to move on levels I/II for their next move because of the alternating schedule described in the rules. This allows the Readers to be more aggressive because we can move anywhere at anytime.

4,a,2 seems more legit.

2009-11-11T11:23:49.304-08:00

4,a,2 seems more legit.

With IV-D-1, I see a win for the Readers that can'...

2009-11-11T10:53:12.724-08:00

With IV-D-1, I see a win for the Readers that can't be stopped by the Sons. The Sons are on the defensive and don't have a real attack set up right now. Hopefully someone else sees this and can back me up.

IV-D-1 for the attack! Defending row A on level...

2009-11-11T10:42:05.802-08:00

IV-D-1 for the attack!

Defending row A on level IV is uneccessary since the Son's next move has to be in one of the lower two levels. We can defend that row later if needed.

It's an affront to nature, but it crazy enough tha...

2009-11-11T09:19:42.033-08:00

It's an affront to nature, but it crazy enough that it just might work.

Sort of like chocolate and peanut butter in the sa...

2009-11-11T09:06:15.948-08:00

Sort of like chocolate and peanut butter in the same delicious candy?

Are you mad, sir?

Can't we have both?

2009-11-11T08:56:35.465-08:00

Can't we have both?

I'm partial to the attack over defense in this mov...

2009-11-11T08:35:47.366-08:00

I'm partial to the attack over defense in this move.