Broadcast message from Austria in 'chopin':

                        End of Game Summary

Game:    CHOPIN, USEF Judge.
Variant: Crowded, Anonymous.
Outcome: A win in 1911
Power:   Austria, from start.

Chopin was won through a very long sequence of lucky guesses.

Chopin was my first stab at the Crowded variant.

Shortly before the game was opened, I was talking (via Email)
with Travis, Chopin's first GM, about some other Diplomacy matters.
Travis, in passing, mentioned that he just won a Crowded variant
game and the 10 HoF points it earned him. When I joined Chopin,
I wrote to him, "I've signed on to chopin since I want to try
the crowded variant (I heard one can get 10 points for winning
a game :). Of course, the ANON settings were a must..." Travis
responded: "Hmmm... and I wonder who told you one could get 10
points for a win... ;) And I wish I could say I made it ANON just
for you, but that would be a lie." He then added, in jest,
"(not that I wouldn't love to see your ego smashed as a hoard
of newbies ground you into the dust... ;) *heh*)" [Exact quotes].

Jesting as Travis was, I took that last comment as a premonition.
While I pride myself on playing Diplomacy completely free of
superstitions, I still take premonitions seriously. I consider them
as reminders and warnings at the very least; and perhaps even as a
cryptic channel through which otherwise-unavailable information might
flow. Travis' comment, at the very least, was taken as a reminder that I
should guard against over-confidence and that no matter how experienced
a player I may be, "a hoard of newbies" can still "ground me into
the dust." His comment can also instigate a probing introspective
as to "now, what made Travis say exactly *that*?" which might hint
at information Travis possesses but which is unavailable to myself
(like characteristics of the makeup of the players population).

This premonition was only reinforced when I discovered I was
playing Austria. As best as I can remember, Austria was the last
(maybe 10th) on my preference list. It's a tough power to play
in standard, but at least it sits astride 4 neutral centers.
In Crowded, there isn't even that mitigation.

1901-1903, The Premonition Years
--------------------------------
I came to call the first three years of the game the Premonition
Years. This is because in those years I came very close to
being ground into the dust.

Throughout this period (and beyond), my diplomacy revolved around
efforts to organize large alliances. In S01, the idea was that
a 4 or 5 way alliance should dominate all those powers who work
alone or in alliances of two's and three's. The proposed alliance
failed miserably as the Balkan/Russian team jointly stabbed me. That
stab placed me in a position where every season I had 1/2 probability
of losing a unit (should I lose a unit, my game would be over -- the
subsequent losses won't be on a guess; they would be forced).
While correctly guessing to keep myself alive turn after turn,
I was making my second attempt at a large alliance. I was
attempting to organize the rest of the board against BR.
I pointed out to everyone that BR started at 8, already had 10;
and would quickly demolish Turkey (already down to 2), Norway
(also down to 2), and myself. They would then have enough firepower
to defeat the rest of the board by themselves. This attempt also
failed as Germany decided to join BR. He sent a unit over to help
demolish me. My chances of being killed went up to 2/3 per turn.
While continuing to correctly guess to keep myself alive turn
after turn, I was on to my third attempt at alliance organization:
this time against GBR.

My break came when I convinced Germany that the attacks on me
were futile. Even if I eventually misguessed, I'd make sure
that HE never has a chance to benefit from it. He accepted
my promise of help against Russia. With the German pressure off,
"all" it took was a one-in-three guess to wrest a center from
the Balkan player, get my first build, and turn the tide of the war.

A direct probability computation showed that my chances of
surviving that period were below 1%. I had correctly made
two guesses where my chances were 1/2 and 3 guesses where
my chances were 1/3; without making any wrong guesses (which
would have been fatal). The chances of doing all that are 1/108;
less than 1% (!).

Persistence in the face of imminent destruction got me through.
I was poised to turn things around.

1904-1906, The Alliance Years
-----------------------------
My constant efforts at large alliance building did have a lasting
impact. By the time of the turn of the tide, I was leading a
cohesive AIT alliance, and maintaining good relations and a
communication channel with all the Western powers.

England stabbed all of his neighbors in 1903, which gave me
many advantages. First, it was the basis of my newest rallying
call: stop England from winning. Second, it made sure the
Western powers were all occupied while my AIT alliance was
cleaning up the east. Third, it would give my alliance the
excuse to head west "to help contain England" as soon as our
work in the East was finished. This last advantage was particularly
important, as part of my strategy was to send my allies Westward
when I was ready to stab them.

The Alliance Years proved very fruitful. Balkan was eliminated.
Russia, shocked at his ally's fate, agreed to look West and never
bother us in the East. England was stalled at 7 units, and I had
grown to 7. Turkey and Italy were doing exactly as I was asking them.
Germany was too far gone to interfere with my activities.

Lowland was shifting around between opposing England and working with
him.  He even made a weak incursion into the Barren zone -- and toward
my rear. However, by that time Italy and I were strong enough to
repel him, and we got the "excuse" to start heading West -- as we
had been planning for some time.

(Spain and Norway were already eliminated, and France was confined
to Iberia.)

It was time to make my play!

1906, The Great Stab
--------------------
With Italy poised to begin an uninterrupted growth phase, Turkey
positioned to expand beyond Anatolia, and Russia ready to make
progress in Scandinavia; F06 was my last chance to decide if
I want to play alliance-to-the-end, or make my stab now -- crippling
my allies before they ever got a chance to grow. I decided to
go for The Grand Stab. I simultaneously stabbed Italy for 2 of his
4 centers, Russia for 1 of his 4, and also Turkey, but not for any
centers, just for position. Turkey had no fleets, and my
stab assured that he would be contained in his peninsula -- unable
to exit until I got around to killing him.

I had grown to 10 centers, but had burned all my alliances.  Now
it was a question of clawing my way to victory through tactical play.
I did have a great position, though. There were the 3 Turkish centers
guarded by 3 grounded armies, and IR were totally out of position to
defend themselves.

Everyone (besides France, more on that below) was now actively against me.

In 1907 I finished Italy off and reached 12 centers. However, for
all my 12 centers, I was still facing an opposition of 20 units.
The cork on Turkey was a crucial element in my ability to withstand
such a large force disadvantage and even grow. However, that cork
was unstable. Turkey and Russia were working together to dislodge
me from SEV. It wasn't so much that the loss of one center would
be a problem, as it was that losing it to TURKEY would enable him to
build a fleet -- behind my lines -- and my defenses would rapidly
collapse.

A string of correct guesses, at probability of 1/2 per turn, kept
Turkey out of SEV from 1907 until I eliminated him in 1910.
Had Turkey gained a build in 1907 or 1908, I would have been
defenseless against the snowball effect of such a force in my
poorly guarded rear. With no stalemate line and everyone (save France)
against me, I would have been ELIMINATED. Had Turkey OR Russia
taken SEV in 1909 or 1910, it could have been secured to a
stalemate line against me and I wouldn't have been able to win.

My chances of having correctly guessed in all 8 turns were 1/256;
less than one half of one percent.

1907-1910, The French Alliance
------------------------------
Actually, not EVERYONE was against me. France, with 2 units, was with me.

Ever since 1902-3, France had been expelled, by Lowland, from his home
land and had taken refuge in the 2 Iberian centers. Lowland was always
keen on exterminating France, but never had the wherewithal to send a
sufficient force to accomplish this mission. France had put up a gritty
defense and held on.

Throughout all my (early-game) calls for alliances, Lowland would
NEVER agree to be part of any alliance that included France.
He always insisted on killing France first. (It is fitting, then, that
France was very instrumental in his ultimate loss!) My offering a
hand to France was his only means of staying alive.

Even as I was engineering the great stab of 1906, I was arranging for
Italy to support France into retaking MAR. The act wouldn't gain France
any (immediate) build (because of a lack of any other home centers), but
it would harm Lowland. (And, also, I had a good reason for not wanting
to see ITALY gain the center!) As Italy was destroyed, almost seamlessly,
I replaced him as the savior of the French.

At first, as I saw it, this was a "classic" alliance of a near-winner
with a near-loser. While it may appear that their game objectives --
to win for the former and not to lose for the latter -- are mutually
exclusive, they can still be accommodated in a surprisingly sensible
alliance.  The near-loser will give the near-winner some percentage
points toward victory -- say by helping him cross stalemate lines --
and in return he gains some percentage points toward staying alive --
say by being helped to grow to the size of an average defending power.
There are few illusions held by the members of such an alliance.
The near-winner knows quite well that an any moment the near-loser
may feel his size has reached an adequate level and he can now
safely join the stop-the-winner stalemating coalition. The
near-loser knows quite well that at no time will the near-winner
allow the alliance to get in the way of a win.

With my help, France was able to build -- for the fist time ever --
in 1908. I insisted he build an army (in MAR). Even as he was building,
his MAO fleet was dislodged. He had two realistic retreat options:
To POR, sealing the MED against any further incursion by the Western
powers, or to IRI -- creating threats behind their lines. With my
encouragement, France choose IRI.

All my attempts to split England and Lowland proved futile. England --
who could have become a major contender himself -- wouldn't stab Lowland.
Lowland couldn't be brought to a point of worrying enough about England
to do anything defensive. I even went to the troubles of writing to
Lowland a long "EoG-like" letter telling him how England and I have
agreed to split the game between us, and consoling him in the kindest
of language for losing despite his excellent play. Alas, Lowland
wouldn't do a thing. (After England "failed" to stab Lowland that turn,
I sent Lowland a note congratulating him for whatever it was he pulled
to "change England's mind." Never mind that the whole EA alliance
didn't exist to begin with.)

As I secured the Turkish front, and the entire front east of Switzerland
became stalemated, it was clear that the only way I could win is if
I took ALL the French centers. This was going to be very tricky.

Working with France, I constantly stacked the deck in my favor,
constantly trying to arrange it that France felt compelled to take risks
which might benefit me. I did NOT want him to grow to the point where
his position became viable enough to start playing an independent game.
Priding myself (to F) on the ability to predict the opponents' move, I
would usually predict that the opposition would attack some of his centers
in a manner where the only possible defense is for me to also attack
said center with support. This way, if I was "right," the defense would
hold; if I was "wrong," *I* would "unfortunately" gain a center at France's
expense. I took the French centers one by one as I was occasionally "wrong."

Realizing that sooner or later it would be obvious that French
self-interest is NOT being served by an alliance with me, I set
out to influence France toward playing for reasons OTHER than
self-interest. I made sure I always treated him with more than
just respect. I played along with his "role playing" handles.
As much as possible, I allowed him to make the final decisions
on his moves (as if he doesn't anyhow). I prevailed upon him the
importance of and appropriateness of avenging Lowland for his misdeeds.
I attempted to challenge his skills and intelligence with probing
Diplomacy puzzles. I pointed out to him that playing toward
SURVIVAL is a worthy goal, reachable if I win.

I don't know if these pandering efforts had any effect. I do know that
ultimately France continued to help me even beyond the point where
there could possibly have been any self-interest in doing so.

(One of those "other-than-self-interest" promises I made to France
was to give him a big mention in my EoG. I hope it is big enough.)

1911, The 100% Win
------------------
A situation of great theoretical interest developed in 1911.
I reached a position from where I could win with a probability
of 100%, although I could not force it. I actually foresaw
that position some turns beforehand and was prepared with a
rigorous mathematical analysis of the position when it came.
(I even posed the problem as a puzzle to France and to some of
my Diplomacy friends before the position actually came about!).

This was a direct tactical challenge. I had 17 centers and needed
to get an 18th one without allowing the opposition to form a
stalemate line in the interim.

I had several sensible moves available to me. The first one was SAFE.
No matter what the opposition did, the situation couldn't change
in a manner unfavorable to me. Unfortunately, the SAFE move was
easy to defend against, and to prevent me from actually winning.
The second one was DANGEROUS. The DANGEROUS move would allow
me to win against some (but not all) of the defenses the opposition
would have against the SAFE move, but it also risked allowing
the opposition to form a stalemate line if they guessed I'm playing
the DANGEROUS move. However, if they try it and it turned out I
played SAFE, I instantly win. Normally, a strategy where I play
99% of the time SAFE and 1% of the time DANGEROUS would have been
enough. The 99% SAFE would (usually) win against any opposition
attempt at forming a stalemate line, and the 1% DANGEROUS would
(eventually) win against an opposition which refuses to ever try.
Unfortunately for me, there existed a strategy for the opposition
which would prevent me from winning under either the SAFE or the
DANGEROUS move; although that move could never lead to a stalemate
line by the opposition. What I needed, and had, was a third strategy:
A DANGEROUS strategy on the DANGEROUS strategy. One which would
win only against that third defense. Putting it all together, the
strategy I composed was to play SAFE 99% of the time, DANGEROUS 0.99%
of the time, and DANGEROUS-on-DANGEROUS 0.01% of the time. Now,
no matter what the opposition do, I would have a 99% chance of winning.
Of course, the 99% number was chosen arbitrarily. I could easily set it
to 99.9%, or any other number as close to 100% as I care to make it.

The only problem was that if the opposition was going to force me to
go through with it, the game might take upwards of 10,000 seasons (for
99%) or 1,000,000 seasons (for 99.9%). I suppose the best way to resolve
such a game is with GM help. I could tell the GM which move I intend to
make each year -- as far into the future as desired (or simply empower
the GM himself to randomly generate those moves according to the
distribution I state), the opposition would do likewise, and the GM
simply announces the results. Something like, "Game Chopin was won
by Austria in 6,237F. Congratulations from around the Galaxy to
the winner."

In keeping with my promise to France to do all in my power to have
him survive (short of risking my own win!), I broadcasted a long
explanation of my strategy and asked for a concession. If I got
a concession, then France would still have survived. Well, France
broadcasted an urge to the opposition not to concede. End of story.

The "10,000 years game," to everyone's surprise, ended on the first
season. True to my stated policy, I played SAFE. For whatever reasons,
Lowland played the move that would counter DANGEROUS, but lose to
SAFE. I won.

Comments to Individual Players
------------------------------
On the whole, the game was played on a rather high level.

Balkan: I must admit I was very surprised by your Spring 1901 stab.
You were so actively engaged in the discussions of the formation of
a sizable Med alliance, and had so well arranged for that alliance
to work in your favor, that I took it to be highly unlikely for
you to have -- on the side -- arranged an even better deal. I am not
easily surprised, and your ability to surprise me has earned you
my admiration. It also earned my determination to see you destroyed.
Not out of vengeance, mind you (I don't "do" vengeance!), but simply
because I feel a lot safer when the game is free of someone
capable of surprising me! Of course, I wasn't able to do much with
that determination until after the "Premonition Years." Still, in
those years, when the opportunity was greatest for you, I think you
anti-climaxed yourself by not following up on your 1901 progress.
(In other words, you blew it!) You seemed content with your
alliance with Russia (who, by your own admission, was not the best
of allies to work with), and never made any serious efforts to expand
your diplomatic horizons. You never contacted me with any offer -- not
even disingenuous ones. Your contacts with Italy were very half-hearted.
It's a big no-no to offer a "cold" contact an arrangement which
involves treachery against others. The "cold" contact is suspicious
to begin with, telling him you are a treacherous kind of guy doesn't
advance your cause. Only after "warming up", can you bring someone
(or make it appear so) into your confidence about stabbing others.
Italy was very turned off by your diplomacy (I know, I got enough
of a sample of your letters to Italy to monitor your diplomatic trends).
In addition, you and Russia didn't quite get coordinated enough to
put the ultimate squeeze on me and get the great breakthrough.
NEVERTHELESS, I can certainly not criticize you too much as you have
come to a position of better than 99% chance of killing me. Only
extreme misfortune saved me. Hae you and Russia killed me, Turkey
and Italy would have been easy prey; and you would probably have had
the better position of BR to advance toward victory. Therefore, all in
all, I must judge your play to have been excellent (but not perfect).

England: I had much less contact with the first England than the second.
Your key move, a year before you were replaced, was a stab against
all your neighbors. You pulled ahead and stayed there until I surpassed
you. However, as with Balkan, my number one criticism is a failure to
follow up. You didn't do much negotiations, sticking to (at most) one
negotiation channel at a time. I tried to open a channel with you, and
you basically ignored me. This (mis)policy was much continued by the
second English player. On several occasions I made (honest and sensible)
proposals to you that we should split the board between us. You never
went for it -- which is unfortunate (for you) since there were some
great opportunities you missed. Once I got to the point where I could
play toward victory without you, you were no longer able to get any
(legitimate) deal out of me (although I did send a few dishonest offers
your way on the "it can't hurt" basis). Your relations with Lowland
always mystified me. You wouldn't (beyond the early game) stab him
"for everything," nor would you play the "good ally." You continued
sitting in and beside some of his home centers without going one way
or the other. Much like a long-term fence-sitter. Preserving the
option for a major stab without actually exercising it. I believe
this (mis-)policy contributed greatly to your loss. Had you stabbed
Lowland, then after 1-2 years of heavy fighting you would have been
in control of most (or all) of his centers and been able to use the
units they gained you aggressively. Had you pulled away from Lowland's
vital areas, then Lowland would have been able to use them. As it was,
a half-dozen units were pinned to minimum-effectiveness garrison duties
at the time they were most needed! STILL, as with Balkan, I can again
not criticize too much since you managed to become a prospective winner,
and if not for extreme luck on my side, you may well have been. (For
instance, if my corking of Turkey collapsed, you might have surged into
my territory, *and* exercised your stab option on Lowland to win the
game).

France: I had little contact with the first French player. Italy, and
then I, were just beginning to cooperate with you when you were
replaced. The second player did almost all the "character development"
(to borrow a term from literature) of France. The only thing I'd like
to add to my extensive analysis of our relationship (above) is the
question of what were your objectives? If the answer is that you
intended to impassionately maximize your position and now feel somewhat
suckered into having that objective corrupted, then there is much to
criticize in your handling of yourself. If, on the other hand, your
objective was a more laid back "to have fun, socialize, be stimulated,
reward friends, punish enemies, role play, etc." then indeed you were
my perfect match and ally. I was perfectly willing to supply you with
all these in return for your help in achieving my objective: win at all
cost (within the rules). I suppose it is up to you, and you only, to
judge if your game was a success. (I suppose this applies to anyone,
but more so here.)

Germany: I was somewhat reluctant to broadcast my 1902 universal
appeal to stop BR from dominating the board. My fear was that one
of the stable Western powers (ELG) would read that appeal in a manner
exactly opposite of what I intended -- as an invitation to be the
third member of a board-crushing alliance with BR. Strategically, BR
would need a Western ally to round out their organization. An astute
Western player would recognize that and "volunteer." I was most
fearful that it might be you. You can imagine my discomfort when,
come the next turn, I discovered that it was indeed you. My game
got even closer to collapsing. I am still unsure if it was correct
for you to let me off the hook and head for Russia. I certainly
was going to keep my word and help you against him even after I
got out of my tightrope, but perhaps there was more for you to gain
(in the short run) by keeping the squeeze on me. All this was
rendered moot when England stabbed you and then Lowland took turns
with England in savaging your homeland. I was certainly willing to
help you out (a stable Germany is good for Austria), but by the
time I was in a position to do so; you were too far gone to be helped.

Italy: You certainly were the most loyal ally I had, and I truly felt
bad about stabbing you. You firmly stood by me through the Premonition
Years. You helped me out against Balkan during the Alliance Years.
You provided me with copies of notes sent to you by Balkan and later
Lowland when those were our (my) primary enemies. You were always
available for enlightened discussion of the position. You did not
bargain for more centers when we were carving out our enemies. You
never fell under their spells against me. Most important of all,
you were a no-surprises ally. You were the best ally one can ever
hope for. When the time for the big decision came (1906), I had to
make a very conscious effort to make that decision impassionately.
I was gunning for a solo victory, and I had to decide if I'm more
likely to achieve it by continuing to work with you -- in which case
you will probably crush right through the Gibraltar chokepoint and
into the soft Atlantic region -- and stab you later (when you and I
are the only two major powers), or by stabbing you right away --
realizing I'll never reach the Atlantic on my own, but that I can
still win without it. I'm still not sure which was the right decision
(although I obviously can't argue with the outcome of the one I took).
Ultimately my decision was tipped by an evaluation which is always
correct when applied to myself: "past loyalty is no guarantee of
future performance." If you were a player cut from the same cloth as
I am, then your entire loyalty was a charade to be spectacularly
exploded at the least convenient time. The stab-now play would
make me least vulnerable to whatever uncertainties there might
remain about your trustworthiness. It is ironic that your proven
record of outstanding loyalty ended up as a reason to distrust you.
(Distrust is maybe a strong word; I mean more along the lines of
"no guarantee it'll continue.")

Lowland: I certainly pegged you as my chief intellectual adversary
(although not my largest military adversary). In the years following
the Grand Stab, I came to view you as the captain of the opposition.
Every time I saw an inspired or coordinated action by Russia, Turkey,
or England; I sighed: "It's been all arranged by Lowland." Every time
I saw a poor move, I exalted: "Where was Lowland? Why was he ignored?"
The question was particularly significant whenever it was England
involved, since England was always retaining the stab-Lowland option.
You were also the only opponent who communicated enough to provide
the diplomatic framework required to maintain a long term viability.
I wasn't particularly concerned about your maneuvering since I always
felt I had a good handle on what you were doing. During the Alliance
Years, Italy was providing me enough copies of the notes you sent him
to allow me to monitor your status. Those notes followed an identifiable
pattern so well that even after that source ceased (after the Grand
Stab), I constantly felt like I could "read" your press by simply
guessing what would you say in the face of any given situation. It may
have been self-delusion, but I know I was never surprised by anything
afterward. I was acting like I was "reading your press," and your board
actions seemed to confirm those "readings." I must say that you played
very well, save one item: your implacable hostility to France. Even when
you were faced with major dangers, and even when France was content not
to harm you, you kept insisting on his extermination. In the end, it
was France who caused you to lose. In contrast, your manipulation -- and
subsequent conquest -- of Germany were done masterly. (Why couldn't you
do that with [the first] France? He was just as pliable!) I did appreciate
the civility and content of our conversations which was maintained even
during the peak of fighting between our forces!

Norway, Spain: We never got to do anything. You two agreed to join
the various grand-alliances I was proposing -- given how your positions,
from the start, were just as desperate as mine was. However, not having
the extraordinary luck I enjoyed, the two of you died early.

Russia: You started the game with Balkan and against me. You weren't
invited to any of the big alliances I was proposing, so your actions
were fair enough. As with Balkan, I can criticize you for failure to
apply the maximum squeeze and finish me off during the Premonition
Years. And, as with Balkan, I can negate that criticism by pointing
out that you were within better than 99% of killing me and achieving
a very powerful board position (even some winning prospects). When
Balkan died and I offered to leave you alone if you were to confront
England, you were EXTREMELY suspicious of my offer. While this is
understandable, it cost you. My offer was in my best self-interest
and therefore honest (as the next few turns illustrated). This
could have been judged from the position alone. By bluntly verbalizing
your fears, you made me do something I rather would have not done.
You caused me to stand on my outstanding record of loyalty to IT
(which was perfect, at the time) to support my case. What this meant
was that an irrevocable link had been established between how I treat
the rest of my allies and how I treat you. Several seasons later,
when I decided to stab Italy and Turkey, I would have rather NOT
stabbed you as well. However, with the solid link established between
my credibility with IT and with you, I figured that you would
view me as a dangerous enemy to be immediately confronted one way or
the other. If you are going to fight me anyway, I'm better off stabbing
you as well -- even if it's only for one tenuous center. (I couldn't
discuss the matter with you beforehand, or even just sound you out,
since I couldn't afford any leak of my intention to stab.) In the
post-stab era, you confronted me well, except that I outguessed you
8 out of 8 times (!). I was surprised that after I stalemated
your front you didn't revert to submitting stalemate orders yourself.
Perhaps you didn't know what the stalemate orders were? With that in
mind, I was careful not to spell out those orders in any of my broadcasts,
just state that they exist. In fact, in my own private guesses, I
projected the game to end rather anti-climacticly with YOU losing
a center while Lowland and myself were engaged in the "10,000 year
maneuver." I knew the identity of the second Russian player, and that
he would know the stalemate orders (which is why I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED
to the replacement had there been a GM around to manage it -- not so
much because I object to competent opposition, but because my play
would have been influenced by my knowledge of the identity of the
opposition, in direct contradiction to the principle of anonymous
games! Still, I am in no position to complain now :).

Turkey: Together with myself (and also NS) you were an early victim
of attacks and hence a supporter of major alliances. Unlike NS, Italy
and I were in a position to save you. While Italy and I were mobilizing
to save you, on several occasions, you did not submit the agreed upon
orders -- sometimes with negative consequences to the alliance (mostly
Italy). I used this failing of yours as an excuse to slowly begin
subverting Italy against you. This would have allowed the two of us (AI)
to stab you while still viewing each other as totally honest. As it
turned out, I didn't need to use that option, but it was already there.
Your agreeing to build a third army, as you well know, was fatal. It
allowed me to cork you in your peninsula until I got around to killing
you. However, you still had a nice defense -- and I was too distracted
with more pressing matters to apply the needed pressure -- and a chance
to uncork yourself if you took SEV. All that collapsed when the first
action of the replacement Turkish player was to misdefend and allow me
to take a center.  Taking the rest was now just a mechanical exercise.

Finally, I would like to thank the players of the game who have made
it what it was, the various GMs and prospective GMs we had, the many
observers who have honored us with their presence, the EFF for
providing us with the judge, and David Kovar for maintaining it.

Dan Shoham
shoham@ll.mit.edu

Go Back to the Diplomacy Academy

Read the next article (Russia's End of Game Statement)