Talk:So Long Sucker

Copyright Infringement
Please note that I removed the bulk of this article because it plagiarizes this web site. If you are the original author of that material and would like to have it on Wikipedia, see WP:CP about what to do. Otherwise, please do not add it again. You can certainly summarize it in your own words, however. --Fell Collar 15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Example?
The definition of how to play is thorough, but possibly a bit overwhelming. It seems like a simple example of a couple rounds of play would be useful. I'd write one myself, but I'm not entirely confident that I understand what's going on. - Flooey 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A good example is found here ftp://ftp.kanga.nu/users/claw/odd/games/Contrib/SoLongSucker.pdf Maybe someone could paraphrase them? 165.123.221.172 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative name - clarification
I have tried (but failed) to keep people from making a howler. If you look at the book (which predates the TV show by several years) you will see (as I wrote last in May 2007 but people don't seem to read the history note):


 * ''In the biography - but not the BBC programme - it's "Fuck Your Buddy" - and the book is surely the more reliable source

What seems to happen is that people who have seen the TV show assume this is a typo - and change it to "Fuck You Buddy". Why clever researchers at the BBC chose to change this (and so subtly make a point about Nash and his game which I think is not actually there) is for others to discuss. But the reference in the article is to what it says in a book - and so this should be kept accurate.Testbed (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-retractability of prisoners
I have a question that is to do with the non-retractability of prisoners and to explain it I use the following example.

Mr Green, Mr Yellow, Mr Blue and Mr Red started out with chips, the color of which matches their surname.

Mr Green notices that Mr Yellow has a blue chip. He transfers it to Mr Red. Mr Red now has two blue chips. On Mr Red's next go he kills one blue chip (not the one Mr Green transferred). On Mr Green's next go he transfers Mr Red's other blue chip to his own stack. This causes everyone to ask "hang on - is this allowed?"...

So which principle is in play

1. By saying that a transfer can not be retracted - does that simply mean that once the transfer has been made, the player's go is over and you can't take the move back (like taking your fingers off a chess piece)? 2. When a transfer is made, does the chip take on a special identity such that the committing player can't transfer it again? 3. When a transfer is made, does the chip take on a special identity such that the committing player can only transfer it somewhere other than where it originally came from.

Sorry if this is confusing. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.1.144 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mr Green notices that Mr Yellow has a blue chip. He transfers it to Mr Red." This is not allowed. One may only transfer chips that are in their own possession. I don't think the rules need to be changed to clarify this, as "Any prisoner in a player's possession may be killed or transferred to another player at any time." implies that it is up to the possessing player to kill or transfer the chip.
 * To answer your question, principle 1 is almost correct: once the transfer has been made (I gave you a chip), the chip is now in someone else's possession, and so cannot be taken back (I can't take the chip back), but whoever now has it can do as they wish (you can give it back or give it to someone else). 129.97.219.141 (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Player Defeated Rule
In Order of Play, there wasn't a rule specifying what happened in the rare scenario that a player defeated someone, and the move rebounding to them would in turn cause them to be defeated. It's now there, but the wording's somewhat choppy, despite my best efforts. Is anyone able to word it better?

74.92.16.229 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Formulation enhancements
There are a two formulations which are not entirely clear to me. Here are reformulations of how I understood them. Could someone check whether this is correct, and if yes, add them to the main article?

First sentence of capture rule: A pile of chips is captured when somebody plays a chip onto it which has the same color as the former top-most chip.

Last sentence of order of play: If all players are represented in that pile, the move goes to the player whose color appears last when going through the pile from top to bottom.

129.199.98.79 (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"First sentence of capture rule:" Yes, that is my understanding as well. And the next move goes to the player who originally started the game with the color that was used to capture the pile.

"the player whose color appears last when going through the pile from top to bottom" would be the chip on the bottom of the pile. You could say "the player whose most recently-played original chip appears last when going through the pile from top to bottom, regardless of who played it.".

Or, I would put it like this: Find the topmost chip that still has one of every other color above it. The player who started with that color goes next.

Branciforte3241 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)