Among other things Lewis Carroll invented the practice of slapping the name of a real place onto board games! 😁 (Le Havre, Alhambra, Castles of Burgundy, Carcassonne, Edo, etc...)
I knew about doublets, but I've never heard of this game. This actually looks like a pretty legit abstract strategy game that would still hold up today and reminds of Lines of Action but made an entire century prior. I'd probably play it with the pawns and checkers though since you can just stack a pawn on top of the checker.
Lanrick works well in a hexagonal board. Five piece for each player. The place (rendevour) would be better at The center of the board, fixed. I Will experiment .
Dear sir! I confectioned a board 25 x 25 to play Rendezvous using 10 pegs for each player. The rendezvous has 19 squares and it works perfectly. In general, we can do a board of any size. The question is the calculus of the size of the rendezvous. That is the formula: If one has 2n pegs, n pegs for each player, the rendezvous must have (2n - 1) squares. It also may have (2n + 1) squares, but the game became less competitive: with (2n -1) squares, both players occasionally may put (n - 1) pegs each and it remains only one square to be disputed by both. With 14 pegs, 7 each, the rendezvous must have 13 squares. For 10 pegs, 5 each, the rendezvous has 9 squares. For 20 pegs, 10 each, the rendezvous has 19 squares. The board must be big enough to allow mobility and non-trivial strategies. Also, we have, in each case, to define the shape of the rendezvous.
Something I don’t understand is how to move the red peg when its yours. This means you lose one of your possible moves? When moving it will make a surrounding peg to land on another peg, then you can’t move the red peg that way? Opponent can land on the red peg when its your peg already?
The game does not work with seven pegs for each player. The rendezvous can be completely occupied and both players still have pegs outside de rendezvous. In that situation, the game became repetitive without evolution, a kind of looping since no player will move his pegs out from the rendezvous.
OH - I see what you mean. Once I have the majority, why give it up. Good point. Appreciate the comment! I will edit my show notes to reflect this, thank you.
Reading the rules from the original book, as well as responses from Carroll regarding readers' queries, I notice some differences in your ruleset to that within the book. Is this based off of further reading I'm unaware of or have changes been made as to simplify the game? Thank you for the great video :D
Dear Sir. I have played several times the game LANRICK using five pegs for each player. What I feel about the game is that it is a NIM game. I sophisticated NIM game. Do you think that my filing should proceed?
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
Among other things Lewis Carroll invented the practice of slapping the name of a real place onto board games! 😁 (Le Havre, Alhambra, Castles of Burgundy, Carcassonne, Edo, etc...)
I knew about doublets, but I've never heard of this game. This actually looks like a pretty legit abstract strategy game that would still hold up today and reminds of Lines of Action but made an entire century prior. I'd probably play it with the pawns and checkers though since you can just stack a pawn on top of the checker.
increible, ahora hay nuevos libros que cazar en sitios de segunda mano. Definitivo que probare Lanrick
Lanrick works well in a hexagonal board. Five piece for each player. The place (rendevour) would be better at The center of the board, fixed. I Will experiment .
Dear sir! I confectioned a board 25 x 25 to play Rendezvous using 10 pegs for each player. The rendezvous has 19 squares and it works perfectly. In general, we can do a board of any size. The question is the calculus of the size of the rendezvous. That is the formula:
If one has 2n pegs, n pegs for each player, the rendezvous must have (2n - 1) squares. It also may have (2n + 1) squares, but the game became less competitive: with (2n -1) squares, both players occasionally may put (n - 1) pegs each and it remains only one square to be disputed by both.
With 14 pegs, 7 each, the rendezvous must have 13 squares. For 10 pegs, 5 each, the rendezvous has 9 squares. For 20 pegs, 10 each, the rendezvous has 19 squares.
The board must be big enough to allow mobility and non-trivial strategies.
Also, we have, in each case, to define the shape of the rendezvous.
Oooh, math! Sounds very logical - thanks for the info, Antonio.
Something I don’t understand is how to move the red peg when its yours. This means you lose one of your possible moves?
When moving it will make a surrounding peg to land on another peg, then you can’t move the red peg that way?
Opponent can land on the red peg when its your peg already?
The game does not work with seven pegs for each player. The rendezvous can be completely occupied and both players still have pegs outside de rendezvous. In that situation, the game became repetitive without evolution, a kind of looping since no player will move his pegs out from the rendezvous.
OH - I see what you mean. Once I have the majority, why give it up. Good point. Appreciate the comment! I will edit my show notes to reflect this, thank you.
Reading the rules from the original book, as well as responses from Carroll regarding readers' queries, I notice some differences in your ruleset to that within the book. Is this based off of further reading I'm unaware of or have changes been made as to simplify the game?
Thank you for the great video :D
which differences you noticed?
Dear Sir. I have played several times the game LANRICK using five pegs for each player. What I feel about the game is that it is a NIM game. I sophisticated NIM game. Do you think that my filing should proceed?
Interesting idea. Thanks for your comment!
😁👍