Clarification on Canfield rules
Hi. I've been doing some research and have some questions about Canfield. Normally I'd just let this go, but Canfield is noteworthy enough to deserve discussion.
Both "100 Games of Solitaire" (Coops 1939) and Morehead/Mott-Smith say that you must move either a top card or an entire pile--partial tableau sequences is not allowed:
- "Sequences on tableau may be moved bodily, but not parts of sequences."
- "an entire pile must be moved as a unit for building on another pile"
Pretty Good Solitaire, along with many (but not all) other implementations, allows partial sequences to be moved. Was this change intentional to make the game easier, or for some other reason?
On a related topic, PGS rules for Canfield variant Storehouse directly references "100 Games of Solitaire". In that book, it says "Vacancies in the tableau row are refilled only with cards from the pack, or the talon if no pack exists." (In context, talon == waste). A similar rule is mentioned for Chameleon. However, in Pretty Good Solitaire, and virtually all other implementations I can find, vacancies are instead filled from the reserve, like standard Canfield. My guess is this is just to make the implementation simpler, but superficially it seems like it could have a pretty big effect on the difficultly.
Thanks!
Chris
Comments
Hello Greg
Hi Chris,
This is an interesting bit that you've brought up, and I want to comment on them. For Canfield, it would mean that card movement in the tableau would be like in the games Galloway and Dumfries that currently exist in PGS. Compared to the existing implementation, I think it could ramp up the difficulty slightly, though that doesn't answer why the existing implementation is as it is now. Since the means are available, a variant with these rules could be included in a future version.
For Storehouse, I don't have access to the complete original rules, but that would be something else to break down here for a more complete understanding.
Perhaps Tom and Gregg would like to offer their views on this.
Bastiko
Rules vary enormously for games of all kinds, not just Solitaires, for example Australian Rules Football. I sometimes play Canasta online using rules that differ from those I'd been used to. The site owner said that rules for that game vary from place to place and that they had settled for those he'd been brought up with. Have you ever played Monopoly for example? My rule of thumb is, When in Rome do as the Romans do. I consult the rules that have been specified therein irrespective of the fact that other rules exist elsewhere. Let's face it, the authors of books printed the rules that they themselves used, and didn't bother to inform readers that their rules are likely to be at variance with other publications.
One country unilaterally chose to create different spellings of the ENGLISH language and in so doing has obliged children in countries that use the English language (correctly 😊) to also learn how Americans are taught to spell. Therefore the multiplicities of Canfield rules pale into insignificance by comparison. Just accept the rules set in whatever program you use or keep moving until you find the variety that you prefer. 😊
On occasion, within Pretty Good Solitaire, I discover that I can make moves that are at odds with the rules for the specific game. Those are just bugs that Tom rectifies after being informed. I want the games to adhere strictly to the rules specified so that everyone has the same chance of winning. Being aware of a bug could sometimes give me an unfair advantage so I report them immediately. The rules are always the rules.
Thanks. I'm aware that there may be many reasons why rules may differ from one program to another. I'm more interested in the history of how this happened in this case. Most of the older rule publications I can find for Canfield adhere to "move entire stacks", while most digital implementation allow moving partial stacks. Clearly there was some inflection point, and I'm curious if anyone can determine when that happened, and if it was accidental or intentional.
Canfield is particularly interesting, as the name of the game itself apparently comes from a specific game played at a specific casino, so in theory it should be more possible to figure out the original rules than it would be for an arbitrary solitaire variant.
Regarding Storehouse, here is the full original description (as an addendum to the Canfield rules):
"Reserve or Thirteen Up or Storehouse.--Like Canfield with the following exceptions. The four deuces are removed from the pack and placed in the foundation row for base cards. Tableau sequences are in suit of the top card only. Vacancies in the tableau row are refilled only with cards from the pack, or the talon if no pack exists. Deal cards one at a time, and two redeals are allowed."
With a casino involved I'd suggest that the reason for a rule change would be exactly the same as why the double zero was added to roulette .... improving the odds in favour of the house.
OK, note that Canfield was one of the first games implemented in 1995. Those rules were probably ignored for simplicity, as keeping it simple was the most important thing back then.
As noted, since then there have been games added that have implemented rules like this.
As for other computer implementations, note that the vast majority just copy Pretty Good Solitaire's implementation rather than go to the original sources. This is known since often when looking at other implementations I would often find my bugs faithfully reproduced.
Thanks for the background, that makes sense.
Personally I don't fret about the origins of games rules. At best, all you could say is that the earliest recorded use of them, (that had so far been unearthed), was on a specific date. To say that those were the original ones would just be an assumption that wouldn't stand up in court. Within PGS we have all agreed to accept its rules thus the existence of alternative ones is irrelevant. Canfield would still be a great game using a variety of similar rules.