Talk:Hasami shogi

Solved as stalemate?
If you play so that pieces that are forward are always connected at the side (and move the piece back if your opponent gets behind it) by the end of the board or another piece, and keep it so that the middle doesn't protrude from where the pieces on the side are, would that be a "perfect play"? If so, then is this game "solved" as a stalemate? Omio9999 (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? (Can't understand your description.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably have to draw it out with a diagram, but as I said, if you move your pieces in a fashion where none are exposed to capture (by moving the side piece one block ahead first), you remove the ability to lose pieces as long as no pieces "stick out" from the middle.

Example first few turns in table form (I'll try to add better diagrams better): ^ Start of the game, n moves first. (x is empty space, n and o are player pieces) n moved his left-most piece. A subtle, safe advance. o plays agressive, and tries to block n's piece. n merely moves the piece on the right. Realizing that his advance was too early, o withdraws their piece. Seeing the withdraw, n moves a piece up to the "line" he's inching towards.

One cannot "defeat" this strategy, except by using it to achieve stalemate. Hasami Shogi has been "solved". If you want to test it against an AI: You'll need flash player to play, but here's the link.

I'm not sure if someone else has discovered this solution before I have. I hope not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omio9999 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see the strategy you mean now. Pritchard says a win = reducing the opponent to one piece. Bell says a win = capturing all the opponent's pieces. Neither says the result when a player has no legal move (stalemate). It looks like you've concluded that logical outcome of the strategy you describe is stalemate (right?). I think I agree with that. I can't find any reference on the result then, but my guess is that it would be very natural for stalemate = loss for the stalemated player. (It is also hard to find anything about stalemate in Shogi, since it never really happens, but what little there is says stalemate = loss for the stalemated player.) In that case, I don't know what you've "solved". (How to lose!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. I suggest algebraic notation instead of diagrams. After your move 1.a2, as White I would reply 1...j2. (Pritchard skips the letter "i", so: a b c d e f g h j.)
 * Feel free to edit the above to your liking, it was just a visual. By "Solved", I mean the following: 1) If your opponent uses this strategy, and you don't, you will lose since you are unable to capture pieces. The opposite also holds true. 2) If you and your opponent both use this strategy, it's settled as an infinite-move stalemate, ultimately [both players lose]. 3) The first to deviate from the strategy exposes a weakness, and depending on locations, that person will lose.
 * Also, while Hasami Shogi is kind of a variant of Shogi, I'm unwilling to assume they follow the same win/lose logic. &#91;Omio9999&#124;Talk page&#93; - Just 'cause, I guess. 18:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't get you ... A player may be "unable to capture pieces", but might be able to stalemate the opponent (which as mentioned should probably be presumed to be a win). By "infinite-move stalemate", I think you mean "repetition of position"? (Since stalemate is by definition, an ended position.) I don't know if there is a Hasami rule govering repetition of position (probably not), but that would probably end as draw by agreement. "Deviating from the strategy" leads to a loss, "depending"?! (I don't know what that means. Bad play can lead to loss. If one player uses your strategy, and the other doesn't, I don't see any proof of "loss". As above, 1.a2 j2, White has already deviated from your strategy. Why should he lose? IMO, it's Black in danger of losing [via stalemate], not White.) As mentioned, stalemate never happens in Shogi in practice, but what refs are out there say it's a loss for the stalemated player. Could find nothing re stalemate re Hasami; but, it'd be natural that stalemate = loss for the stalemated player. (So, what are you "unwilling to assume" and why? Do you think stalemate in Hasami should be draw!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Avoid using Shogi-specific terms?
Excuse this being a possibly "dumb" opinion here [a little pressed for time atm, or I would propose the exact changes myself], but shouldn't we try to make Hasami Shogi seem like an entirely different game compared to Shogi? If so, is it appropriate to compare it to a shogi piece? A couple of other [minor] things, also: 1) This game crops up in Club House Games, for the NDS - worth mention anywhere? 2) In Club House Games, they use red and black pieces; the pieces similar in shape, but they're solid in colour, rather than marked differently. Is this considerably acceptable? 3) If #2 is arguably acceptable, I'll get a picture of the improvised board I have, and put it up until we can get a more official image dedicated to the setup of Hasami Shogi.

Just throwing this out there while I have a spare moment with a reliable connection. If anyone can guide me on how ti add an image to the Hasami Shogi page later, I'd like that to pop up in my talk. =3 &#91;Omio9999&#124;Talk page&#93; - Just 'cause, I guess. 20:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)