Author |
Topic: Styles of play (Read 1138 times) |
|
amalgam
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #3973
Gender: 
Posts: 14
|
 |
Styles of play
« on: Aug 16th, 2009, 2:38am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Hello all, this is my first post in the Arimaa forum, so I'm sorry in advance if something goes wrong (by Murphy's Law.)
Although this has probably been discussed heaps in the past, I was just wondering if I could be enlightened on some of the various styles of play people use.
I understand that there probably isn't a clear line between styles at the moment, but for example, in chess, some people prefer open positions, others closed positions, Capablanca was reputedly good at the endgame, while Tal cast wizardry over tactical positions.
So, some things perhaps to consider are:
Attacking/Defensive nature, at different parts of the game. (although one could even split this further with different styles of attack (e.g. massed attack, solitary attack etc.) Also, how often one moves rabbits forward.
Opening setup: for example, the principles between 99of9's setup, Fritzlein's four-rabbit setup, (e.g. what opening play complements this setup)
Opening moves: Do you try to go on an instant attack with your elephant and try to pull pieces out? Do you try to make your position super-solid in the opening? Any other goals?
Tactics/Strategy: Do you like capture races or goal races? Or do you prefer getting a hostage/frame, and gradually rotating pieces out?
Material values/positional values: How much do you value certain pieces, and the hostaging/framing of such pieces? How much does a spatial advantage in Arimaa compare with a similar spatial advantage in Chess, or Go? What about tempi?
Anything else you feel can be different.
In response to my own questions, I'd probably say that initially, I am somewhat passive, as evidenced by my opening move as Gold usually being Enn, Mn, Hn. That's just also to see what my opponent will do. I generally don't push rabbits a lot, unless I really need the extra
trap defence, or if I have the luxury of doing so due to a material advantage, or as the beginnings of a goal race.
I like capture and goal races, as they are exciting, but more often than not, I usually come out on the losing end. However, I find learning how to take advantage of a frame quite useful as well.
I think I don't fully understand tempi or spatial advantages in Arimaa, as I don't know how to increase them against a non-passive opponent.
Thanks for providing a game which is so enjoyable, I hope that soon we will see clubs everywhere, and rapid growth!
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Styles of play
« Reply #1 on: Aug 16th, 2009, 7:21am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 16th, 2009, 2:38am, amalgam wrote:| Attacking/Defensive nature, at different parts of the game. (although one could even split this further with different styles of attack (e.g. massed attack, solitary attack etc.) Also, how often one moves rabbits forward. |
|
This is probably the most obvious way to distinguish players, although the attack/defense distinction is somewhat confusing. Everyone attacks. Nobody waits around and does nothing. The distinction is whether someone is comfortable contesting control of an opposing trap, or would prefer to try to make a capture in a home trap without contesting an opposing trap. So you should ask, not whether someone likes to attack or defend, but whether he is a "home-trap" player or an "enemy-trap" player.
Quote:| Opening setup: for example, the principles between 99of9's setup, Fritzlein's four-rabbit setup, (e.g. what opening play complements this setup) |
|
The opening setup is pretty much irrelevant. For example, you would think that four rabbits forward would only work with an enemy-trap style of play, but that's not true. I have played games where I set up with four rabbits forward and then played a home-trap style all the way.
Quote:| Opening moves: Do you try to go on an instant attack with your elephant and try to pull pieces out? Do you try to make your position super-solid in the opening? Any other goals? |
|
Generally the opening moves reflect a style of play rather than defining it.
Quote:| Tactics/Strategy: Do you like capture races or goal races? Or do you prefer getting a hostage/frame, and gradually rotating pieces out? |
|
The other main distinction in my mind (apart from the home-trap/enemy-trap distinction) is between the control style and the racing style. I am the quintessential control player, because I am never so happy as when there is nothing my opponent can do without conceding disadvantage. I hate when there is a capture race or a goal race, because I always feel I might lose the race. However, some people love to race because they always feel they might win the race!
Generally speaking, control positions occur when the elephants are together, and race positions occur when the elephants are apart.
Quote:| Material values/positional values: How much do you value certain pieces, and the hostaging/framing of such pieces? How much does a spatial advantage in Arimaa compare with a similar spatial advantage in Chess, or Go? What about tempi? |
|
Space advantage rarely matters in Arimaa, because you can't control the center. If you put a piece in the center, the opposing elephant will step on it and create a hostage fork between the two enemy traps. Forget about space. (Well, that's not entirely true, because in some control positions the elephants are both committed, so they can't step on pieces put into the center, so space does matter, but that's a reasonably advanced concept.)
For material values, people seem to have general tendencies for how much they like fewer, stronger pieces relative to more numerous, weaker pieces. Of the top players I probably love my camel the most relative to a horse plus something, whereas blue22 has been known to trade his camel away for as little as a dog and a cat.
Another material axis is the value of rabbits relative to small pieces. Here the disagreements are less pronounced, but chessandgo is an example of a small-piece lover relative to Adanac as a rabbit-lover.
The value of some positional features relative to material is still widely disputed. In particular, chessandgo seems to put a higher value on camel-holding-horse-hostage and on elephant-pinned-to-framed-horse than I do. But ironically I am more likely to try to take a horse hostage than he is, which would suggest that the home-trap/enemy-trap distinction is more fundamental.
I suppose rabbit advancement also deserves its own style axis. Generally the people who like to advance rabbits would be ones who like to race, who like to play on the enemy side of the board, and who value rabbits lower than little pieces, but none of the correlations have to hold. One might like to advance rabbits as part of a control play, or in order to help secure a home-trap hostage, or with the intent of keeping them rather than trading them. Blue22 is the biggest rabbit-advancer among top players, while chessandgo seems to be most reluctant among top players to advance rabbits in the opening.
The fact that there can be such a variety of strategic preference is a good sign for Arimaa. If there were no different styles, i.e. if everyone had to play identically or be crushed, then Arimaa would get boring quickly. But in practical experience, we don't know who is right. For example, I was undefeated in the 2008 World Championship, but was that because I started advancing rabbits more freely, or in spite of of my rabbit-advancing ways? Similarly when chessandgo won the 2009 World Championship with what was fundamentally a rabbit-pulling strategy, did that prove that rabbit-pulling is the way to go, or only prove that he is the best player regardless of his style?
I love that Arimaa is evolving in such a way that your style question has many genuine answers.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 16th, 2009, 7:33am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
nycavri
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #2416
Gender:
Posts: 44
|
|
Re: Styles of play
« Reply #2 on: Aug 16th, 2009, 11:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
Fascinating stuff from both of you - thanks.
My problem to date playing Arimaa has been getting caught up in all the High-Strategy thinking. Far too often, while pursuing a position with long term benefits, I'll miss a two turn capture of one of my pieces. And that's when I don't simply hang a Horse or Camel.
All this is to say that, although I would like to add to this discussion by examining what style of play I prefer, my play syle can currently be described as "Mistake Prone" . . .
I need to get many more games in, and get well and truly in the habit of checking and rechecking for hanging pieces before sending a move. Then, perhaps, my prefered style will become apparent, or at least relevant!
That said, I am surprised to hear Karl play down the importance of the opening setup. My instinct (again, based on incredibly limited play) is that it is in the setup phase where further gameplay breakthoughs will be found.
Time will tell . . .
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Styles of play
« Reply #3 on: Aug 18th, 2009, 10:00am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 16th, 2009, 11:48am, nycavri wrote:| My problem to date playing Arimaa has been getting caught up in all the High-Strategy thinking. Far too often, while pursuing a position with long term benefits, I'll miss a two turn capture of one of my pieces. And that's when I don't simply hang a Horse or Camel. |
|
Yes, that's exactly what I expected when I was writing Beginning Arimaa. Wherever I have one or two tactical examples, there should also be a hundred exercises for the reader to work through. The best way to ramp up your playing strength at first is to practice tactics, practice tactics, and then practice tactics some more.
On the other hand, there were a lot of ideas I wanted to get on the table. In the long run it will be good for you to be aware of some High Strategy while you are practicing tactics.
Quote:| I am surprised to hear Karl play down the importance of the opening setup. My instinct (again, based on incredibly limited play) is that it is in the setup phase where further gameplay breakthoughs will be found. |
|
I shouldn't have said the setup is irrelevant. The setup is as important as any other move, if not more important. However, the next round of gameplay breakthroughs will not come from studying openings. It will come from studying the middlegame. Once I understand the middlegame better, I will say, "Oh, duh, my opening has been stupid all these years. Obviously I should use setup X instead!" Then we will throw out all existing opening theory and start over.
So I agree with you insofar as I think there is vast room for improvement in our opening play. My point is just that we will attain that improvement from better understanding other things on the style spectrum: the value of camels, the value of advanced rabbits, the viability of swarming, the value of hostages, etc. Eventually there will be identifiable opening styles, but these will be derivative from other stylistic preferences.
In chess terms you wouldn't say someone loves cramped positions with pawn structure possibilities because he plays the French Defense, you would say that he plays the French Defense because he loves cramped positions with pawn structure possibilities.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print