"I can guarantee I win every time against that robot. I'd just remove the power source."

Version 3 turns off the human crew's life support if you try and remove it's power source.

Version 4 uses time travel to kill your parents.

Winning is winning, no matter how you do it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru#James_T._Kirk.27...

If a win is defined as conditions A + B + C, and you only complete A and C, can you win?

At that point, you're not even playing the same game, so how can you claim you've won?

Because you become Captain of the Starship Enterprise?

Or, because you've achieved the mission goals?

Kirk only got a commendation for that. He had to work for a long time after the Kobayashi Maru incident to get the Enterprise.

You're begging the question. Achieving the same goals with different rules is a different game. Using stilts and a machine gun to get a ball in a hoop is not basketball.

Yes, it's not a valid solution to the game of basketball, but it is a valid solution to the "get a ball in a hoop" game.

I don't think the Kobayashi Maru test rules said anything about "don't try to break the game". Success can result from relaxing an irrelevant requirement.

It's not irrelevant if it's the difference between winning and losing. Since you're already rewriting the scenario, why not just declare yourself the winner from the start? It would save a lot of effort.

Because the people aboard the Kobayashi Maru might live?

Or suggest what the other person should do, as Derren Brown does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf82QOqJTt8