DannyUncanny wrote:I was talking about bigger games.
The 1 vs 1 game was just me trying something new. I now realize that it is a really stupid game that simply measures who can spend more time on the internet clicking refresh, or can afford to wake up at weird hours to play in the middle of the night to avoid the other guy out there clicking refresh. But ultimately any large free style game will come down to 1 vs 1 at some point where these super cheap tactics come back into play. Taking 2 turns for every turn your opponent takes can basically turn around almost any kind of advantage.
Again; No one can take two turns while the other takes only one. At least not that I know of. What is lost is the timing or tempo of the game. Tempo is where I hit you first and then you hit me back with a sort of a pause between hits to absorb, readjust and sort of recuperate or regroup for another assault or hit. When I hit you and then as you are about to hit me back I also hit you right away I take that pause away from you so that when you hit me back it is not as strong. I wipe out your strength by not allowing you a pause to hit me back as best as you could. I should add here that the tactic discussed also has disadvantages that are not readily or easily seen at the time. It is a gamble but when done right it pays off big time. But it is the sort of knock out punch that you would save for the right time in the game.
In the game, you do not lose a turn. It just seems that way because the tempo has been change but no one lost a turn and the tempo could always be changed again eventually if you know how and if the game last long enough. This also happens in the game of Chess where White plays first so white by nature plays offensively and Black plays second and so by nature plays defensively. But as it happens the tables are sometimes turned so that suddenly Black is the one playing offensively and White is then on the defense.
This is due to a little know tactic called, "The In between move." The in between move, while it may not seemingly pose any threat at the time yet when couple with further moves proposes a problem for white that he must answer right away or lose something of value. The result is that in order to save himself from that predicament he must sacrifice his timing. White does not lose a turn but his inherent right to be the offensive player in the game had to be sacrificed to save the situation. It is a move that is not right away as obvious yet just as deadly. So is the play that follows immediately on the heals of another in Freestyle settings.
A play is made that is not as obvious but may prompt one to play in an anticipated manner or may not, and yet the end result is the same, the timing has been changed. The player who has played last and positioned himself and now holds the right spoils can now, by being the first player in the next round advance into a critical region or position to maximize his assault thus changing the timing in the game. No one has lost a turn and no one has played twice in a row. All will get the chance to play once in that round but the advantage had now been taken by that player who had probably stayed up all night waiting for the first player in the round to "hurry up" and play so that he can take the advantage of his position (having been the last to play for the position in the previous round) before some one else knocks him from his advantageous position to maximize his assault. But he did not play twice. He was simply the last to play in one round and then waited till the first player (which could not be him) to play in the next round.
As far as I know, no one can play twice in a row. It just appears that way. In Freestyle games everyone plays one time in each round.