Werewolf LXXII: Chess (Checkmate!)

[hoopsguy]

RendeR, do you disagree with my points on the "no lynch"? Just checking.

[hoopsguy]

Jackal, I've got it covered for now. However, I won't be around a bunch tomorrow so if you (or someone else) wants to take over posting it then you are welcome to it:

No Lynch - Path (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep (175)
Hoops - Mccollins (177), Purdue (194), RendeR (197)
Jackal - Clap (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot - Heinz (159)
Mccollins - Hoops (180)
Clap - Jackal (185)

[RendeR]

I don't agree or disagree really. no lynch for me is a gam by game basis basedon wether I think it makes sense for that particular game and wether anyone has garnered enough attention to warrent a vote.

[The Jackal]

hoops i went ahead and made my own list so i'm just going to post it so i have an original to copy off of, plus it doublechecks us

no lynch (3) - path12 (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep49 (175)
hoopsguy (3) - mccollins (177), PurdueBrad (193), RendeR (197)
The Jackal (2) - claphamsa (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot (1) - jeheinz72 (159)
mccollins (1) - hoopsguy (180)
claphamsa (1) - The Jackal (185)

[hoopsguy]

Oh, and I suppose someone else would need to take over the vote counts if you lynch me ... forgot about that in the last post.

Seriously, I get why you would put a vote on me in that I'm not communicating directly with any of you three. So there is a better than 50% chance that I'm not on your team. But you have a zero percent chance of getting a wolf with a vote for me.

I suppose that this is what I get for asking people to actually vote for a player instead of wasting a day. So be it - I'll be taking the same stance next time this comes around.

Oh, and I've been at least this animated about other game mechanics - for example, my hatred of being converted and the imbalanced "spy" role just to pick two off the top of my head. Heck, I think I've been pretty public in multiple games about my thoughts on "No Lynch". If doing some "dumpster diving" in past games would help prove this point I guess I could do that, but I'm hoping that there are some people (clearly not RendeR) who recall me arguing this position in the past.

[RendeR]

Relax furball, I'm just messing wit-ya. Maybe.

I'll probably change the vote, as I didn't see the early one on you, I thought you only had 1 when I posted that. But for now its good enough to hold a place for me.

[RendeR]

PASS: may we know what the tie-breaking rules are? or is that a super-secret-eyes-only-red-glasses-specialty-decrypto-decoder-ring sorta thing?

[hoopsguy]

Oops, I multi-quoted in the wrong thread. If you actually want to follow the links go to the Heroes thread But the content is listed below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoopsguy
I'm OK with no lynch, but a little worried that we could be giving up two kills per night - one to Company, one to Sylar. The kills to Sylar, if it follows the show, equate to him gaining powers. For better or worse, people we lynch don't get eaten by Sylar. And we gain no info from a player on the hot seat if we vote no lynch. No matter the format, werewolf is always about gaining information. Do we really gain more information by not applying any pressure for one day in the thread rather than taking a shot at a bad guy with a largely random Day 1 vote?

Those are the reasons to go against the trend. Just making sure that someone is actually representing them in the thread before we all go down the no lynch path.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoopsguy
Lathum, I don't know how it is going to work. If I had to guess then I would think the Company kills every night and Sylar every other one while he is out there, but we (villagers) will all get to find out together over the next couple of days.

I just think that people are jumping on the "no lynch" idea pretty quickly. And I generally don't like bandwagons. So I wanted to at least present the opposing viewpoint, which I felt had been under-represented up to this point.

I'm probably going to put a vote on someone rather than go "no lynch", even if it is appears to be futile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoopsguy
Lathum, I'm of the opinion that we need to get information - just like an other game of werewolf. Applying pressure is one way to do it. Runaway "no lynch" decisions is not a way to apply pressure to anyone.

Is the pressure applied on Day 1 often misdirected? Yep, especially when the final votes come in. But I'm not wild about the idea of foregoing discussion on players for a day, even if the end result is going to be "No Lynch". In fact, I would much rather see a tight vote - with or without "No Lynch" as one of the options available for voting.

Player A = 7 votes
Player B = 7 votes
No Lynch = 8 votes

That works just fine for me.

No Lynch = 20 votes
Player A = 2 votes
Player B = 1 vote

That doesn't work for me at all, in terms of getting value from the day.

It didn't take long at all to find this - these posts are from Day 1 of the Heroes game. I guess you can argue tone, but I don't think that I was all that over-the-top this time around. But I think I'm pretty consistent in my arguments on "No Lynch" - and Heroes had a ruleset that I thought was more compelling for "No Lynch" than this game.

I'll keep pulling up from other threads if there really is a belief that I'm pushing some kind of different agenda this game than others. But if people really want me to do that it is going to have to happen tonight as I don't think I'll be able to do much post diving tomorrow from work.

[hoopsguy]

Awesome - finally get some interesting conversation going (well, outside of the votes for me) and then I go multi-quoting from old threads and act as a thread-killer. The room went from "9 members" to "me" in a hurry.

Hello ... is this thing on?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Hello ... is this thing on?

Umm...no? Who are you and why are you wearing flaming green pajamas?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RendeR

PASS: may we know what the tie-breaking rules are? or is that a super-secret-eyes-only-red-glasses-specialty-decrypto-decoder-ring sorta thing?

Quickest way would have been to read the rules.

Ties will result in all the people tied being removed from the game (except for the Kings, of course).

[path12]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Once in a great while I see a ruleset where I can rationalize "No Lynch" in my mind. But otherwise, I think it is a copout by villagers who want to play nicely with others in a game where that is clearly not the point.

hoops, I think you know me well enough to know that 'playing nicely with others' is fairly low on my priority list, though I usually at least try to be polite.

My rationale for no lynch, this particular time, is because in a non-traditional werewolf setting such as this I think there is a benefit to seeing how the ruleset plays out for a day in order to get a better feel as to what's going on.

This could be because I'm not all that smart, and complicated games hurt my head; but this time it's because I see more benefit to seeing how the combination of chess + werewolf works before knocking off folks who might be of benefit to us down the road.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Quickest way would have been to read the rules.

So yer saying its not a super-secret-specialty-decoder-ring type thing?

[path12]

Besides, if I voted anybody day 1 it would be whoever didn't check in as per my usual.

Has everyone checked in by the way?

[hoopsguy]

Path, in many cases we would still have three players remaining who can use the role. We can't vote out a king. So the greatest risk, I suppose, would be the ouster of a queen. I'm guessing that this would not be very likely to happen as a "reveal" would take place before that went down.

In the event of a reveal, it forces the player to be more cautious but it also provides some real benefits in terms of establishing a COT. In the example of a "forced queen reveal" the bishops could submit scans on that person who is sitting right next to them and may very well be fenced in again next turn based on pawn movement in front of them. I think similar arguments can be made for other pieces on the board. I'm not advocating that people reveal their "piece + location" but establishing voting records, forcing a subset of players to reveal, and validating reveals are all good things in the overall scheme of obtaining info.

If people elect to go "No Vote" that is obviously their perogative, just as it is mine to suggest that I think it is a poor strategy. At the moment, I guess I would prefer to not be lynched, so if that is my option I'll likely end up going against my better judgement.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Ties will result in all the people tied being removed from the game (except for the Kings, of course).

Am i the only one that reads the rules?

[The Jackal]

With my previous post in mind, I don't think a tie helps us at all.

unvote clap

vote no lynch

[path12]

I understand your reasoning and personally I'm not looking at you any differently for your feelings about needing a lynch, because I get that.

Again, my rationale is not because I'm afraid of losing a seer, but more that I don't have a feel yet as to how all these pieces are going to fit together and want to see a turn before I start casting stones (or pawns as the case may be).

Plus, while a forced reveal of a queen might be advantageous at some point, I'm not convinced that a day 1 reveal of any powerful role helps the good guys in this particular ruleset.

[The Jackal]

no lynch (4) - path12 (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep49 (175), The Jackal (217)
hoopsguy (3) - mccollins (177), PurdueBrad (193), RendeR (197)
The Jackal (2) - claphamsa (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot (1) - jeheinz72 (159)
mccollins (1) - hoopsguy (180)

I've had many margaritas so that may or may not be my last vote count of the night.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by path12

I understand your reasoning and personally I'm not looking at you any differently for your feelings about needing a lynch, because I get that.

Again, my rationale is not because I'm afraid of losing a seer, but more that I don't have a feel yet as to how all these pieces are going to fit together and want to see a turn before I start casting stones (or pawns as the case may be).

Plus, while a forced reveal of a queen might be advantageous at some point, I'm not convinced that a day 1 reveal of any powerful role helps the good guys in this particular ruleset.

I'm definitely in agreement with all of that. In this game in particular forced early role reveals would probably hurt more than help.

[hoopsguy]

Heading to bed, hoping someone picks up the vote count baton leading up to deadline tomorrow:

No Lynch - Path (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep (175), Jackal (217)
Hoops - Mccollins (177), Purdue (194), RendeR (197)
Jackal - Clap (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot - Heinz (159)
Mccollins - Hoops (180)

[The Jackal]

I'm all over the baton. Just don't expect me to wake up before 11 or so.

[The Jackal]

Furthermore, I have a physical therapy appt at 3 EST to start rehabbing my "partial ligament tear" so I won't be around at the deadline, but I should be around from 11AM - 2 PM.

[hoopsguy]

The chances of a forced queen reveal, in particular, are 10%.

If you assume that there are four wolves (likely the minimum number in the game) then the chances of a wolf having to scramble are 20%. It climbs to 30% if there are six.

I realize that straight math doesn't account for the likelihood of a wolf getting in that position since they have a big(ger) block that can communicate and steer votes. However, as a rule I'm guessing that we have a better chance of putting heat on a wolf than we do of screwing over a key role.

[Lathum]

VOTE NO LYNCH

[ntndeacon]

Vote KWhit
Just to put a vote out there I am not really in favor of a no lynch at the moment.

[Sonic Youth]

Right, I'll have to read this a bit later, and print some of this up for when I'm commuting to get a grasp of how things are to go.

[The Jackal]

Me tired.

no lynch (5) - path12 (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep49 (175), The Jackal (217), Lathum (225)
hoopsguy (3) - mccollins (177), PurdueBrad (193), RendeR (197)
The Jackal (2) - claphamsa (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot (1) - jeheinz72 (159)
mccollins (1) - hoopsguy (180)
KWhit (1) - ntndeacon (226)

Ill update when I wake up.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I think we're looking at far more than 4 wolves. I would suggest 6 or 8. If they're aren't 6 or 8 we're looking at a situation where it's virtually impossible for them to win. Considering that in Pass's last game it was virtually impossible for the wolves to win, it's quite possibly true in this game as well. So in that case we're playing chess.

How so? We have four knights but for all we know one of those is a wolf (yes Cronin, I really don't see why a knight shouldn't be a wolf. Pass actually used the number 18. If he was excluding knights it would be 14. And if you're going to exclude knights then you'd better exclude the wolf bodygaurds - meaning all we have to do is look at the pawn, bishop, 2 of the rooks and queens as potential wolves). If one is a wolf then the wolves know the identity of the other wolf.

The wolves ideal on-board tactics will be to play it safe, letting the villager pieces take all the risks and die. With the sort of information pool they have they have a very good chance of knowing everything that's going on on the board, so they can position themselves safely and subtly try to influence their PM partners to take an aggressive approach and spring a trap on them.

The wolves have a lot going on for them. I don't see any reason to believe that there need be more than 4 - in fact many more than that and the fact that they know who their PM partner is means that they can get a pretty comprehensive picture of what role everyone has. If anything I'd balance the game by having less wolves.

[path12]

Nothing a GM loves more than an discussion of whether the game is too easy or too hard for one side. Usually means it's right on.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

OK - is there a compelling reason to go "No Lynch" today? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there at least 4 of most of the roles in the game? No offense to anyone, but that has the ring of "disposable" to me. In fact, we don't even have the ability to mistakenly vote off a king.

Strongly agree with hoops on this one. And very surprised at some of the people who are voting "no lynch" here. Seems that the only reason you'd want a no vote is if
a) you think the knights have a decent chance of hitting a target with their scans. Odds are they won't even get a villager scan, let alone a wolf scan. I'd rather take one conventional seer over the four knights if the game was solely about taking out the wolves.
b) You plan on storming the opponent's king and hope that your team-mates are going to help you. But even in this case the chances are just as great that you take out one of the opponents' defenders as one of your team-mates pieces. Makes no sense to me.

No lynch is an almighty cop out by any villager voting it. You're giving the wolves a free ride (last game give me an insight into how a day one lynch vote can really pressure the wolves) and it's only the wolves who would be interested in doing that.

[Narcizo]

OK I think that we need to counter-act the no lynch vote. That leaves me picking between hoops and Jackal. Hoops is giving off a far more believable villager vibe at the moment. (blah blah blah cunning wolf etc etc ad nauseum).

Originally Posted by The Jackal

This is a pretty out there game mechanic render. Granted you've played much more with hoopsguy than I have, but it's seemed to me he's just responding to Narc more than anything.

This is probably just an innocent comment but another interpretation is that could potential seen as premptive blame placing for a villager hoops lynch (placing blame with either Render or myself) and adds 5% on my wolfometer. Jackal also seemed to be flip-flopping between a lynch and no-lynch vote, which makes it seem like he's trying to gauge which is the winning horse. I get pretty suspicious of "I'm leaning towards ..." comments on day one.

Vote Jackal

[Narcizo]

I think we also need to establish which sort of role reveals warrant a save from a lynch. My thoughts are that we don't want to lynch knights, the wolf-bodyguard rook and the Queen. If I were to rank them I'd probably put them as;

Wolf-Bodyguard Rook - Can stop the wolves making a night kill. Little ambiguity to that really.
Knights - I'm doubtful of their value although I've been trying to think of a way to improve their value and will see what I can come up with.
Queen - I was doubtful whether to include this piece, as I'll explain later.

I've seen a couple of comments that really confuse me. It seems that people are really digesting the fact that the Bishop role is absolutely nuetral to you at the moment. (unless you're a bishop yourself, in which case someone else having it are at the bottom of the list). A bishop will find out the allegiance of someone there's only a 50% chance that that fact will benefit your side. I sort of get the feeling that people are (sub-conciously, at least) thinking that the roles are all going to be helping their side. This explains the love of the queen. In fact I'm strongly tempted not to include the queen in my list of roles we don't want to lynch because, Heh! There's a 50% chance that lynching the queen will significantly help my side. The only reason I included it is because it's the one piece that can really threaten the opponent's king at any stage in the game - and the wolves really don't like pieces like that.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by Narcizo

It seems that people aren't really digesting the fact that the Bishop role is absolutely nuetral to you at the moment.

obviously.

So onto the Knights. They are going to be most useful if they have a lot of pieces around them for them to scan. This fact alone makes me think that my neutral-zone plan is the way to go. Let's face it if the white knight winds up surrounded by black pieces it's not really very likely that it will survive. However if it's surrounded by pieces of it's own colour then it's in a much secure position.

My feeling is that to maximise the knights potential to discover roles all villagers should make an effort to wind up with their piece next to the knight at the end of the day. Meanwhile the wolves will be trying to keep their distance and/or influence the knights so they wander off to the other side of the board and get gobbled up by the opposition.

To get a decent set of pieces surrounding the knight they need to move from their start position. It gets tricky to co-ordinate that though. Ideally, though, they need to follow standard chess practice and try to move to a centralised position. Meanwhile villagers should be trying to position their pieces to get themselves in range of the knight. Knights should be very wary of any scheme their partner hatches that sees them move away from the safety of their own side. In fact that goes for everyone, apart from the queen who, at least, knows that her partner isn't a wolf.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by Narcizo

If one is a wolf then the wolves know the identity of the other knight.

D'oh!

One more thing. People are probably considering/discussing voting together with their PM partner. I would argue that this is a terrible idea, except in the instance where you're trying to save that person. Assuming that the wolves are in PM contact with villagers this will really allow the wolves a massive hand in controlling the vote. I think in this respect you should be ignoring any arguments put forward by your partner in a PM (and questioning why they're bringing them up in PM rather than in public in the first place) and voting the way you think.

This is particularly true for the pawns. Who have 4 votes each. Two pawns voting in unison will be enough to save/lynch anyone or push a no lynch through.

[Neon_Chaos]

If noone moves, the Knights already have a clear view of everyone (if all the knights are good).

The Knights can see one space away (does this mean 360 degrees?), and any space where they can move.

Each Knight can see their adjacent Rook, Bishop, the three pawns in front of him, and the pawn in front of the Queen/King (depending on which side the knight is on).

Essentially, if noone moves the Knights can scan everyone.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I think we're looking at far more than 4 wolves. I would suggest 6 or 8. If they're aren't 6 or 8 we're looking at a situation where it's virtually impossible for them to win. Considering that in Pass's last game it was virtually impossible for the wolves to win, it's quite possibly true in this game as well. So in that case we're playing chess.

Okay, that's way too many wolves. So overboard, that I would argue you might even know the number of wolves and are trying to mislead here.

It's a weak reason to vote for someone most days, but enough for me on Day One. Obviously, I am not a fan of the No Lynch.

VOTE BARKEEP

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by RendeR

don't forget the inbred hillbillies.....oh, wait, you were TRYING to avoid that part.....my bad...carry on.

Now see, if you wanted the vote, all you had to do was ask.

Unvote The Jackal
Vote RendeR

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

If noone moves, the Knights already have a clear view of everyone (if all the knights are good).

The Knights can see one space away (does this mean 360 degrees?), and any space where they can move.

Each Knight can see their adjacent Rook, Bishop, the three pawns in front of him, and the pawn in front of the Queen/King (depending on which side the knight is on).

Essentially, if noone moves the Knights can scan everyone.

Don't they also have to name a target, though? I don't think they get a carte blanche read on everyone around them. That just specifies the "range" of their ability.

And that doesn't even go into the possibility a knight is a wolf.

[Chief Rum]

I won't be available in the day as usual with work and being locked out from going here, but I will be around post deadline.

[Abe Sargent]

Not yet, obviously, but someone tomorrow pre-deadline I'd like to take a gander at those who've yet to check in and post.

[Narcizo]

Spreading the vote is pointless at this stage if you hope to avoid a no lynch.

Neon - good luck convincing everyone that they should stay put. And each individual knight can only see 3/4 other people in the opening set-up (depending on how the ownership of pawns is distributed). If they centralise and people move around them then the chances are that they can see a few more - say 5 or 6 maybe, ideally.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Essentially, if noone moves the Knights can scan everyone.

To explain myself better. My understanding of how the knights work is that they give the name of the person they wish to scan. If that person controls a piece that is in that knight's range then he will be told whether that person is a wolf or villager.

In the opening set up that means the knight has a 3/19 or 4/19 chance of getting a valid result. Not ideal. If the knights can move to a more centralised position and the surrounding pieces make an effort to get around the knight then that chance might improve to 6/19 or so. Still not great, but a better chance anyway.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Narcizo

To explain myself better. My understanding of how the knights work is that they give the name of the person they wish to scan. If that person controls a piece that is in that knight's range then he will be told whether that person is a wolf or villager.

In the opening set up that means the knight has a 3/19 or 4/19 chance of getting a valid result. Not ideal. If the knights can move to a more centralised position and the surrounding pieces make an effort to get around the knight then that chance might improve to 6/19 or so. Still not great, but a better chance anyway.

I know how the Knights' scans work.

I'm just saying that if all the Knights are good, and the big pieces (rook/bishop) are good, then each knight can try and scan one of the big pieces right beside them. Eliminating a Rook Wolf or a Bishop Wolf can be pretty big.

That is, if noone moves.

I will echo the sentiment that that's going to be a stretch to expect everyone to stay put.

[Neon_Chaos]

I still haven't been convinced that keeping everyone alive and letting the Wolves make the first kill is not the best plan.

Vote No Lynch.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I know how the Knights' scans work.

I'm just saying that if all the Knights are good, and the big pieces (rook/bishop) are good, then each knight can try and scan one of the big pieces right beside them. Eliminating a Rook Wolf or a Bishop Wolf can be pretty big.

I'm not following. How can the knight try to scan one of the big pieces? All he can do is try to scan a person, while all everyone else (villagers) can do is try to move their piece so it is within his range.

Let's try to give an example of the ideal situation, (assuming white for simplicity's sake).

Pawns all move one step forward.
Knights move to D2 and E2.
Bishops and king and queen stay put
Rooks move to B1 and G1.

I think that's arranging things optimally (in terms of the knight scan). That way each knight can scan; a rook (a knight's move away), the other knight (adjacent), both bishops (one adjacent, one a knight's move away), the king and queen and both sets of pawns (all adjacent, at least 5 pawns in range).

So out of 19 possible targets this ideal set up would give each knight an 8/19 chance of a successful result. To be honest I think that's about as good as it's going to get for the knight's scan. And I suspect that we wouldn't be able to organise that even if there weren't any wolves who will do their best to sabotage such a plan anyway. Assuming all 4 knights are good and no knight is night killed (pun intended ) that means that there's close to 90% chance that at least one knight will get a successful scan (11/19*11/19*11/19*11/19 is the chance of not getting a successful scan).

I actually think it would be in both factions interests to follow this plan but I doubt that there will be enough takers to implement it because
a) people will be worried about letting the opponents know where their pieces are likely to be, and
b) the wolves won't want to do it, and won't want villagers to follow it either.

As I've already pointed out, your "stay put" idea would result in only a 3 or 4/19 chance of a successful scan for each knight. Let's say it's 4/19, then the chance of at least one successful scan is just over 60% (15/19*15/19*15/19*15/19).

As I said that's assuming all the knights are good and that none are killed. Assuming there's a bad knight and he arranges the death of his partner (actually a pretty risky proposition for a wolf knight to follow on day one), then we're down to 11/19*11/19 or a slightly better than 60% chance of at least one successful scan for the optimal situation and under 30% chance of success for your method.

An obvious disadvantage with my neutral zone idea (which looks likely to fall by the wayside anyway) is that it stops the knights having any chance of scanning pieces of the opponents colour. Then again I would say the added advantages of relatively safely being able to scan more of your own colour outweighs that disadvantage.

[Narcizo]

Someone might want to check my maths on this one incidentally, as I'm not really certain about the calculations.

[Neon_Chaos]

What I was trying to say is that each Knight, based on the starting positions, can scan the Rook/Bishop adjacent to them without having them move.

This is on the assumption that none of the Knights are Wolves.

We can immediately clear four major pieces of being wolves on day 1 alone if noone moves.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I still haven't been convinced that keeping everyone alive and letting the Wolves make the first kill is not the best plan.

Vote No Lynch.

In all honesty how can that be the best move for the villagers? What's going to be different tomorrow? All that's going to happen is that we're going to be more likely to be at a stage where we're going to start throwing away villagers quickly on the board while the wolves play it safe, hold back and cover both kings's arses.

I think I've demonstrated that we can't really hold our breathe hoping for huge amounts of information from the knights while the bishops are irrelevent in tracking down the wolves. We either rely on blind luck on the board and someone trapping the king early (against a group of players who will have more information than us and will be co-ordinated) OR we establish voting records immediately and hope to get some early pressure on a wolf.

I'm finding this movement for a No Lynch bizarre. Particularly with people like Path and Lathum following it.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

We can immediately clear four major pieces of being wolves on day 1 alone if noone moves.

Sorry but according to how I'm reading the rules, you can't. You don't scan a piece, you scan a person. You can't "clear" a piece directly, only through a process of elimination.

Say you're a knight, my understanding of the rules is that you send in an order, "Scan Narcizo" for example. Then if I control a piece that winds up next to your knight you get a message that says that I'm a villager. If I'm not in range you'll get a message saying your scan failed. Now if you do get a successful result then you know that the piece that I control must be visible to you so if I'm the only piece you can see, then
a) you're incredibly lucky , and
b) you know I control that piece.