Author |
Topic: Material exchanges/control questions (Read 2308 times) |
|
JimmSlimm
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #6348
Gender: 
Posts: 86
|
 |
Material exchanges/control questions
« on: May 3rd, 2011, 9:52am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I am trying to figure out the importance of different units, this is both for a material evaluator used in my bot, and for myself trying to learn.
I wasn't sure wether to post in bot development or here in general discussion.
1. How many rabbits would you give up for killing opponent elephant? 5? 6? 7!?
2. When luring bots into killing one of my animals for the purpose of "freezing" its elephant, is it worth to sacrifice the camel? If no, horse?
2b. If the bot is very very good except the weakness that it falls for this trick, is it still worth to sacrifice the camel to "freeze" the bots elephant?
3. Is it worth to sacrifice a camel if you kill:
2 enemy dogs?
1 enemy horse+cat?
1 enemy horse+dog?
4. How many rabbits is a enemy cat or dog worth?
Any answer is appreciated, thanks!
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
rbarreira
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1621
Gender:
Posts: 605
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #1 on: May 3rd, 2011, 9:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
Have you seen this page?
http://arimaa.janzert.com/eval.html
It automatically calculates some existing material evaluation functions, and if you click each function it links you to an explanation of how it's calculated.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
robinz
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #6110
Gender:
Posts: 65
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #2 on: May 3rd, 2011, 10:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
I am far too weak to attempt to give answers to your questions, but from my time on the Arimaa forum it seems clear that even the experts don't agree on the answers to these questions! Or more likely, the only accurate answer is the catch-all "it depends on the position". (For a start, material imbalances involving trading one strong piece for 2 or more weaker pieces depend heavily on what other material is left. After all, a cat is exactly as good as a camel if your opponent has nothing left except for his elephant and some rabbits!)
PS: I forgot to thank rbarreira for providing the link (and Janzert for making the page) - I've not come across it before. (And, while I may be weak, I'm very interested by theoretical questions like these.) Lots of interesting-looking material there! 
|
| « Last Edit: May 3rd, 2011, 10:09am by robinz » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rbarreira
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1621
Gender:
Posts: 605
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #3 on: May 3rd, 2011, 10:23am » |
Quote Modify
|
I would add that while interesting, the first question is very unlikely to matter when playing a game 
The best evaluators seem to be happy to throw away 7 rabbits for the elephant though.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JimmSlimm
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #6348
Gender:
Posts: 86
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #4 on: May 3rd, 2011, 10:27am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 3rd, 2011, 9:58am, rbarreira wrote:Have you seen this page?
http://arimaa.janzert.com/eval.html
It automatically calculates some existing material evaluation functions, and if you click each function it links you to an explanation of how it's calculated. |
|
Thanks! It seems like some evaluators even thinks its ok to throw away all rabbits for a elephant, when in reality, it has lost the game if that happens
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rbarreira
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1621
Gender:
Posts: 605
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #5 on: May 3rd, 2011, 10:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 3rd, 2011, 10:27am, JimmSlimm wrote:
Thanks! It seems like some evaluators even thinks its ok to throw away all rabbits for a elephant, when in reality, it has lost the game if that happens |
|
In my opinion the game terminating conditions like goals and having no rabbits should be handled separately from the material evaluation, and that's probably the reason why some evaluators don't handle it either.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #6 on: May 3rd, 2011, 10:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
We have almost no experience with positions in which one side has an elephant and the other side doesn't. We don't have a good basis for building anything into our material evaluators about the value of the elephant. Even for material evaluators that work reasonably well in "normal" situations, there is scant reason to trust them about the value of the elephant.
The value of an elephant blockade depends on whether it can be broken, and if so at what cost. If it can be easily broken, it isn't worth sacrificing a rabbit for. If it can't be broken, it can be worth more than a horse. I've never seen a situation where it was worth sacrificing a camel to get an elephant blockade.
I think of a dog as worth two rabbits as the first trade, and a cat as worth about a rabbit and a half. That, however, is controversial, as is everything else we are discussing here. IdahoEv showed us statistics that when there was an initial cat-for-rabbit trade, the side that gave up a cat won significantly more often than the side that gave up the rabbit. Thus, even though all bots and all humans except IdahoEv prefer a cat to a rabbit as a first trade, the statistical evidence is that the rabbit is worth more than the cat!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Swynndla
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1821
Posts: 235
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #7 on: May 7th, 2011, 3:21am » |
Quote Modify
|
Fritzlein, in another older post, you said (something like) as material is exchanged, the camel hostage is worth less, and Bomb could be tricked into over-valuing the camel hostage towards the end of the game, and so a human player could thus get an advantage. Or perhaps you didn't say as material was exchanged ... but can you explain why the camel hostage is worth less and less towards the end of the game? I don't doubt you, I'm just trying to understand. You were saying that if a camel hostage is worth a dog towards the beginning of the game, it will be worth less than the dog towards the end of the game. Oh, you were probably meaning that the value of a dog increases after material has been exchanged, and so you would no longer give up a dog to take a camel hostage (but Bomb still would)? Or perhaps you were saying that Bomb would go after the camel trying to take it as hostage, when it should have been thinking more about goal threats? Thanks in advance! (And I hope I'm posting this in the appropriate thread.)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #8 on: May 7th, 2011, 11:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
The main reason exchanges make a camel hostage less valuable is that exchanges make the camel itself less valuable. Are you clear on why the camel itself is less valuable after material has been exchanged?
There are two basic ways to play after giving up a camel hostage: swarming the hostage trap and giving up the camel with a well-timed elephant departure. The swarming strategy is harder on an emptier board, but the elephant departure is much, much easier.
If the defending elephant leaves in order to capture material, it doesn't need to get as much material to compensate losing the camel. But more importantly, on an emptier board the elephant has more opportunity to leave in a way that creates a goal threat. If the threat is strong enough, the hostage-holder might not even be able to take the camel immediately. If the defending elephant has a couple of turns to make mischief before his camel is lost, it is all the easier to get sufficient compensation for the lost camel. Of course, the hostage-holding player will realize what is going on and try to play cautiously so that a departing elephant can't do as much immediate damage, but simply being constrained to play more cautiously in this way makes the camel hostage less valuable.
Bomb would do things like give up a rabbit to avoid giving up his camel hostage when the rabbit was far more valuable, or be happy to "win" a camel for two dogs when the two dogs were more valuable, etc. But if I remember correctly, the errors don't start to get noticeable until five or so pieces have been traded, i.e. most games are decided by then anyway.
|
| « Last Edit: May 7th, 2011, 11:13am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Swynndla
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1821
Posts: 235
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #9 on: May 7th, 2011, 4:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Thank you for the very clear explanation Fritzlein - I tend to find this sort of thing a bit confusing.
Playing around with the Arimaa Material Evaluation Scores, I see that camel vs two dogs is better at the start of the game, but not after lots of material has been exchanged:
EMHHCCRRRRRRRR > EHHDDCCRRRRRRRR
but:
EMRRRRRRRR < EDDRRRRRRRR
which surprises me at first, and at second ... after having a think I can see how the camel would tie down one dog, and the other would hopefully be free to do damage and cause goal threats, but I'd still be telling myself "you fool, you're losing!". I guess Bomb tells itself that too, as it thinks both are winning for the side holding the camel. I think I need to play a few M vs dd games to silence my inner voice.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #10 on: May 8th, 2011, 12:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
Does it feel better if instead of this:
EMRRRRRRRR < EDDRRRRRRRR
I call it this:
EDRRRRRRRR < ECCRRRRRRRR
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
UruramTururam
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2537
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #11 on: May 8th, 2011, 2:33am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 8th, 2011, 12:38am, 99of9 wrote:Does it feel better if instead of this:
EMRRRRRRRR < EDDRRRRRRRR
I call it this:
EDRRRRRRRR < ECCRRRRRRRR |
|
You may even call it
HDRRRRRRRR < HCCRRRRRRRR
|
|
IP Logged |
Caffa et bucella per attactionem corporum venit ad stomachum meum.
BGG Arimaa badges - get your own one!
|
|
|
Swynndla
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1821
Posts: 235
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #12 on: May 8th, 2011, 5:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 8th, 2011, 12:38am, 99of9 wrote:Does it feel better if instead of this:
EMRRRRRRRR < EDDRRRRRRRR
I call it this:
EDRRRRRRRR < ECCRRRRRRRR |
|
Good point, the 2nd one is logically the same strength, even though it seems so much more comfortable.
So:
ERRRRRRRR < CCRRRRRRRR
... sac'ing my phant for two cats is sometimes the right thing.
In chess, if you're up in material, exchanges are a good idea, but in arimaa, it looks like if you're up in the number of pieces (not necessarily strength), exchanges are a good idea.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
UruramTururam
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2537
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #13 on: May 8th, 2011, 9:31am » |
Quote Modify
|
This leads me to think about the situation I had in one of my on-board games recently. All the pieces were on the board. I had a nice positional advantage, and then I had an opportunity to convert it into material one. I could catch a dog or a camel first both of which were leading to almost-forced sequences of moves. The first option ended in getting MHD for MH. The second one to MH for HD both with no significant positional advantage. Which one of the above would you value more?
During the game I decided to exchange MH and get an additional dog.
|
|
IP Logged |
Caffa et bucella per attactionem corporum venit ad stomachum meum.
BGG Arimaa badges - get your own one!
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Material exchanges/control questions
« Reply #14 on: May 8th, 2011, 10:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 8th, 2011, 9:31am, UruramTururam wrote:| The first option ended in getting MHD for MH. The second one to MH for HD both with no significant positional advantage. Which one of the above would you value more? |
|
I would prefer MH for HD, leaving myself with the deputy, which makes it very easy to play for control, but I can see how racing players would prefer the extra dog with a couple of pieces gone.
|
| « Last Edit: May 8th, 2011, 10:54am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print