Scott Schultz wrote: >A Dragon playing against a Yendi would expect hamete play; perhaps even >become suspicious if the Yendi was NOT playing that way. Against an Issola, >he'd be much more likely to fall prey to his assumptions that all Issola are >courtiers and seneschals rather than strategists and tacticians. The point >of hamete, if I understand it correctly, is to appear to be making a mistake >while actually laying a trap for the opponent. > Not quite. While involving a trap, hamete is always incorrect play--always refutable--always a mistaken move. There's an element of bullying about it, too. An Issola might be many things, but surely never incorrect or a bully (-: A yendi might play hamete, but would probably bait even more subtle traps, and take care not to be worse off if the opponent played the proper counter. In fact, simply playing a game--win or lose--could well be a move in a larger game to a Yendi, I imagine. Go might appeal to Orca; one speaks in terms of profit and loss and efficiency, after all. I can't quite see it, but it's not out of the question. Snarkhunter