Author |
Topic: Ongoing Opening Event? (Read 7375 times) |
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender: 
Posts: 38
|
 |
Ongoing Opening Event?
« on: Apr 13th, 2013, 5:19pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
gangsterveggies and I were talking about about working on openings together after the postal mixer and it occurred to me that we'll get better results if more players are involved. Drawing inspiration from clyring's Endless Endgame Event, I came up with an idea for an ongoing workshop of sorts to help players develop their openings.
I think it might be best to have participants do something like a 5-game series with each other to give each player a chance to test an opening against a 99of9 set, an EHH set and leave the final match open to the players.
I'd like to keep it informal, so the scheduling of games would be left up to the players and the pairings would be determined by who is available. If this thing ends up happening, I'll volunteer to make the pairings or provide a way for players to select their own opponents.
I think it would also be good to designate a place where participants can post links to their games for the rest of the group to critique.
Is anybody interested or have any suggestions to make it better?
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
gangsterveggies
Forum Newbie
Arimaa player #8302
Gender:
Posts: 5
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #1 on: Apr 18th, 2013, 6:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think it is a very neat idea that can help beginner players to train the base of their game.
I think the opening is not the most important part of the game, but if one does not now how to do it correctly it influences pretty badly the rest of the game strategy.
Personally I think tihs would be really great to improve this part of the game and I would be nice if more advanced players would help.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #2 on: Apr 23rd, 2013, 9:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
I like the idea. It might be interesting to try "first to capture wins". That would help to keep the game focused on the opening.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #3 on: Apr 23rd, 2013, 11:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 23rd, 2013, 9:17am, omar wrote:I like the idea. It might be interesting to try "first to capture wins". That would help to keep the game focused on the opening.
|
|
That's a great idea! I wanted something that would help focus the games on the opening, but I couldn't come up with anything...
My only concern would be that it might produce an incentive for players to play just to capture, rather than trying to set themselves up with a good position down the road. Then again, the two objectives might wind up being one and the same.
I keep thinking that perhaps positional advantage should be evaluated as well, but in most cases that should coincide with first capture. I can't think of many situations where it would be beneficial to trade material for position in the opening.
So maybe first capture wins, and in the event of a trade, whoever has the highest score wins, with discussion of the positions in the comments?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender:
Posts: 385
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #4 on: Apr 23rd, 2013, 6:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 23rd, 2013, 9:17am, omar wrote:I like the idea. It might be interesting to try "first to capture wins". That would help to keep the game focused on the opening.
|
|
This doesn't take into consideration trades or sacrifices. It would drastically affect game-play for a player like me. I think that defeats the purpose of practicing opening strategy if you are forced to alter how you play.
In many games I have been the first to lose material, but actually had a much better position. The strategy of being first to win material does not neatly coincide with winning the game.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #5 on: Apr 23rd, 2013, 7:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 23rd, 2013, 6:20pm, browni3141 wrote:
This doesn't take into consideration trades or sacrifices. It would drastically affect game-play for a player like me. I think that defeats the purpose of practicing opening strategy if you are forced to alter how you play.
In many games I have been the first to lose material, but actually had a much better position. The strategy of being first to win material does not neatly coincide with winning the game. |
|
Well, that is a valid point, but we could implement a continuation rule, allowing for maybe two moves after first capture to take trades into account. The only other alternative I can think of is to have people try to reach a consensus regarding when the opening ended and who was winning at that point, but I see that being potentially messy.
Another option is to not keep score and just use the games as an opportunity to discuss and improve opening strategy. I kind of like this option because I would like to see players take some risks and experiment with new setups and strategies. Sometimes I even think the games should be unrated so there is even less at stake.
If we were to keep score based on first capture/trade and allow for truncated games, I might want to see the number of games in each series increased to 8 so each player gets an opportunity to play both gold and silver in each position with the exception of EHH because that is rarely played as gold. I worry that this might require too much of a time commitment though.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #6 on: Apr 25th, 2013, 10:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
What if we were to score it half a point for first capture/best of first trade(s) and half a point for winning the game?
It could reduce the incentive to play for first capture but still provide some measurement for the opening. I know browni, it still doesn't really work for your style of play, but it might work.
I still think we need to answer the question: Do we need to keep score?
I would really rather see this be a way for players to improve their fundamental skill set and get some good experience against human opponents than a competition, but a bit of competition might make things a bit more interesting.
Any thoughts?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender:
Posts: 883
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #7 on: Apr 25th, 2013, 3:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
May be ending say 8 turns after first capture by score obtained by given fixed material evaluator?
But it could end in the middle of a trade ...
I really don't know how to define the exact end of openning phase.
The eee was much easier to introduce.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Nombril
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4509
Gender:
Posts: 292
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #8 on: Apr 25th, 2013, 4:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
If the point is to practice openings, I would suggest unrated games that you quit playing once the "victory" condition is met. (Losing player could resign.)
I agree with browni that "first" capture might not indicate who has won the opening. But we often do watch games and say things in the chat room like "gold has won the opening by achieving x". So it should be reasonable to provide good practice for at least some good habits in opening play. What if we add one or two additional victory conditions that normally signify the end of the opening?
Trades:
Since the focus is the opening, I would suggest a very short continuation (2 turns sounds reasonable), anything longer leads to "I think I can get an advantage from this sacrifice" rather than "I have a concrete tactical line to get immediate advantage from this sacrifice".
Position:
At least two easy to recognize features jump out at me:
Trap Control:
Victory condition of:
* Occupying 3 of the 4 squares by one of the opponents traps.
Hostage/Frame:
They are "good" or "bad", but maybe just achieving one can be considered an opening victory. Breaking it would be a mid-game struggle, and not the goal of this event.
Turn Limit:
If you really want to get 5 or 8 games in, I'd suggest a turn limit (15 or 20 moves ??), probably draws are OK in this case?
Just some reactions to what is being suggested, please take only what is interesting!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #9 on: Apr 26th, 2013, 12:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for the input guys!
I like the idea of unrating games and allowing players to resign after the opening for scheduling purposes. I would like to see games played out to the conclusion though, just because sometimes blunders lead to advantages through strange threads of causality.
I think two moves is a good threshold for trades. Within two moves of capture, one's opponent should be able to to recover and defend, and anything beyond that becomes middle game tactical maneuvers more or less unrelated to the original capture. If it's a true trade, two moves should be more than enough to complete it.
I don't think it's necessary for all of the games in a series to be played in the same day. I'd like to leave the actual scheduling up to the players, and allow them to play out the series over as long or as short a period as works for them. Unless there seems to be overwhelming support for finishing each series quickly, I would like to avoid imposing a turn limit, although it might be wise to quit scoring openings after 20 turns, because if it is that deadlocked, we can probably consider it a draw.
As far as scoring, what about some sort of point system for captures and position? Each piece could be assigned a point value that would be added to a players score upon capture, maybe half of it's value if at the end of the opening it is hostaged? Three quarters of it's value if it's framed? Points for occupying two or three of the squares adjacent to an opponent's trap? I'm not sure it would be fair to consider any of these an absolute victory condition, but maybe we just apply the two-move continuation to all of them. A frame or a hostage would typically indicate the end of the opening and maybe we could say that if it holds up for two moves, the opening is over and score it according to a set rubric. Maybe the same could be done if two of the squares adjacent to an opponent's trap are held for three consecutive turns.
Sounds like it could get complicated.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mattj256
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #8519
Gender:
Posts: 138
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #10 on: Apr 26th, 2013, 1:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
It would be amusing to have one or both players play random setups. (Use a computer to generate randomized starting positions.) Also it would be amusing to give one player a turn or two for a head start, and alternate who has the head start each game so the tournament stays fair.
It sounds like there are two possibilities here: (a) create an artificial goal, like winning material or taking control of an enemy trap, even though those goals aren't how some people actually play, or (b) play a real game and have humans decide who "won" the opening.
I'd like to suggest a middle ground. There are several viable "victory conditions."
- take control of an enemy trap
- capture an enemy piece
- frame an enemy piece (for at least N turns?)
- hostage an enemy piece
- pull an enemy rabbit (N squares forward?)
- (anything else?)
Before the game starts, either both players agree on a victory condition or one is chosen randomly for each player. For example, my victory goal might be pulling my opponents' rabbit, and his victory goal might be framing a piece of mine. As long as the victory conditions are specified up front it's fair. Maybe silver should choose his victory condition after he sees the gold setup, and gold choose her victory condition after she sees the silver setup. Just some ideas...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #11 on: Apr 26th, 2013, 9:31pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for the input matt!
I like the idea of having each player have an win condition. It makes things nice and simple, and it would push people out of their comfort zones. I do have a couple of concerns though. First, I think for the games to be most useful, players should not know their opponent's objectives, otherwise one could tailor their defense to their opponent's objectives alone. Second, the win criteria are not equal in difficulty. I would say that rabbit pulling is the easiest, followed by hostaging, framing, and capturing.
I sat down and put together a scoring rubric today, just to get things going. Here it is:
Scoring Rubric for Ongoing Opening Event
The opening will be considered over after 20s, or when one of the following conditions has been met:
1. Two and one half full turns have elapsed after the first capture.
2. A frame has been held for two consecutive turns.
3. A piece has been hostaged for two consecutive turns.
4. Two key squares of an opposing trap have been occupied for two consecutive turns.
After the conclusion of the opening, it will be scored according to material and position.
Each piece has a value as follows:
Elephant – 10 points
Camel – 7 points
Horse – 5 points
Dog – 3 points
Cat – 2 points
Rabbit – 1 point
Each player receives the full point value for each piece captured.
Each player receives ¾ of the point value for each piece framed.
Each player receives ½ of the point value for each piece hostaged.
Each player receives 3 points if they are occupying two of the key squares of an opponent's trap.
I was thinking that after each game the players could go back and score it themselves, post the score as they interpreted it in the comments section and explain the goals of their opening, so the rest of the group has information to critique properly.
Here are a couple of example openings scored according to my rubric:
I scored this opening 5-0 for Gold. The opening was ended because two and a half turns had elapsed since the capture of the silver cat. Gold therefore receives two points for the cat and three points for occupying the f5 and e6 squares. Silver does not receive points for hostaging gold's horse because it is not in danger of immediate capture should gold evacuate the f6 area and therefore isn't a true hostage.
I scored this opening 2.5-0 for Gold. The opening was ended because the gold horse had been hostaged for two turns. No pieces were captured, and although the c3 trap is contested, silver has occupied a second key square or taken other measures to ensure that the gold elephant remains in place. Gold receives 2.5 points for the horse hostage and silver receives 0 points because at this point his budding blockade has as much potential to work against his long-term goals as for them. Although silver eventually won this game, it was a consequence of gold's inability to make a plan to free his elephant in the midgame, rather than any skillful opening play on the part of silver.
Does anybody have any thoughts on this scoring system?
EDIT: Changed capture endgame criteria from two full turns to two and one half full turns so the last move goes to the side that did not capture first.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 29th, 2013, 3:26pm by crazyharry » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mattj256
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #8519
Gender:
Posts: 138
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #12 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 1:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 26th, 2013, 9:31pm, crazyharry wrote:| Thanks for the input matt! |
|
You're welcome! I'm not really committed to anything I said; I just meant it as "food for thought." You're right that some goals are easier than others, so the scoring rubric would have to address that. I think either (a) the players should have symmetrical goals, or (b) whatever goals the players have for one game, they should then play a second game with goals and colors reversed.
on Apr 26th, 2013, 9:31pm, crazyharry wrote:| I think for the games to be most useful, players should not know their opponent's objectives... |
|
I think the whole idea of practicing openings is artificial to begin with, so it doesn't bother me to also have an arbitrary scoring system where the players have known objectives. It makes the game much more focused and tactical if the players have specific objectives, whereas if you just halt the game at 20s or first capture it makes it more strategic. It would be an interesting exercise to take people out of their comfort zone by giving them objectives that aren't within their normal playing style.
One specific artificial game I'd like to see is a variation on "capture the flag." The first player to have uncontested control of three traps wins. "Uncontested" means no enemy pieces in the trap or any of the squares one step away from the trap. Of course the normal Arimaa rules still apply, so if a different win condition happens first that player is the winner. And captures are still strategically important, but this variant doesn't need an artificial point value for captured pieces. Another alternative would be that the winner is the first player to have uncontested control of one enemy trap. (If none of the other Arimaa win conditions have happened first.)
on Apr 26th, 2013, 9:31pm, crazyharry wrote:| otherwise one could tailor their defense to their opponent's objectives alone. |
|
I don't think there's any way around that. We're talking about an artificial subset of Arimaa, not "real" Arimaa. Any attempt to cut the game short and keep score is going to favor some playing strategies over others. My two cents...
on Apr 26th, 2013, 9:31pm, crazyharry wrote:| I had a couple of example opening pictures to illustrate how scoring would work, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how to upload them to the forum, so they'll have to wait. |
|
You have to first upload the image somewhere online (not here in the forum), and then link to it from the forum. I use imgur.com. (1) upload image on that website. (2) copy-paste the link from that website into your forum post.
If you click on the elephant below you'll be taken to the page on imgur.com. You want either "BBCode" or "Linked BBCode" depending on whether you want a link or not.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mattj256
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #8519
Gender:
Posts: 138
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #13 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 2:23am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 26th, 2013, 9:31pm, crazyharry wrote:| Does anybody have any thoughts on this scoring system? |
|
Thanks for doing all that work!
I think you should make a page for this event on the local wiki and copy your scoring criteria there. That will make it easier for others to critique and edit it. Also the wiki allows you to organize all the practice games in one place, so you can easily discuss the scoring criteria as it relates to each game and keep all the information centralized. (I think that's better than using the comments section of the games.)
When the event is running "for real" we might want it to be a real tournament, but initially I think it's good to play some (unrated) games with other people and try out your rubric and see how it feels.
My one "important" objection is I think the scoring should have no room for judgement whatsoever. In the beginning you'll probably want to do exactly what you said: post a game, discuss the score and the scoring system, but when the tournament is running "for real" the scoring should be either automated or able to be automated. (If I have time I'll work on the automation part but no promises...)
Matthew
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
crazyharry
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #7323
Gender:
Posts: 38
|
|
Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
« Reply #14 on: Apr 29th, 2013, 1:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for the help Matt!
I uploaded some images and added them to my post above. I'll look into the wiki, I think that's a good idea as well.
As far as the event format goes, I think we have two different visions.
I would like it to take on more of an ongoing workshop format to give players an opportunity to air new opening strategies intended for use in full games of Arimaa and receive feedback and advice regarding those strategies. To reach those goals, I believe we should either use a set scoring rubric or refrain from scoring altogether and just let the players rely on community feedback to shape their strategic amendments. I would also like the event to be able to continue for as long as people are interested in participating, with players joining or dropping out as their schedules and interest allow, and I'm not sure that's compatible with a tournament format.
I do like your idea of giving players different objectives, and you are right about the artificial nature of opening competitions, and win criteria will always be arbitrary unless the opening became the game itself. I think we could form a compromise between the two visions by organizing tournaments periodically with different win criteria as a way to push people out of their comfort zones and foster creativity while using the longer-running event as a venue for players to freely devise and test general opening strategies. I'm not going to commit myself to organizing any of these tournaments at the moment, but if somebody wanted to spearhead such an event, I would be happy to help.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 29th, 2013, 1:52pm by crazyharry » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print