Arimaa Forum - Print Page


    
      
        Arimaa Forum
        (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Team Games >> 2007 One vs TheMob >> Move 1
        
(Message started by: The_Jeh on Apr 11^th, 2007, 4:01pm)

Title: Move 1
Post by The_Jeh on Apr 11^th, 2007, 4:01pm

I think we can start discussing our setup choice, since we can't stop chessandgo from thinking about his.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by RonWeasley on Apr 11^th, 2007, 5:53pm

I like the 99of9 setup. I use cats back.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by nbarriga on Apr 11^th, 2007, 6:18pm

I prefer dogs back.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 11^th, 2007, 6:21pm

If chessandgo uses the same setup he did in all of his postal games:

Code:

RDRRDRRR
RHCMECHR
........
........
........
........
........
........

Then I vote for the 99of9 setup with dogs behind the traps:

Code:

RDRRDRRR
RHCMECHR
........
........
........
........
rhdemdhr
rrrccrrr

Chessandgo has a ferocious reputation, but at the end of the day he is a rabbit-puller. He will jump into an EH attack, and just when you getting ready to punish the advanced horse, he will bail out and use his horse to pull back a rabbit.

With this in mind I would consider keeping all eight rabbits back, so as to give him no targets on the wings. Unfortuantely, it is too easy for a rabbit on d8 or e8 to get pulled to d7 or e7, preventing our camel from having access to both wings. Once our camel is stuck on one wing, you can rest assured chessandgo will attack with EH on the other. So having the two flank rabbits a little exposed is the lesser of two evils.

Having an unbalanced setup with M on one side and HH on the other is OK for attack, but I'm a defensive player, and the unbalancing actually hurts defense on both wings. On the HH side there is nothing to chase away an attacking H, while on the M side the M itself is vulnerable to an attacking elephant. Therefore I want to balance horses and put them on b6 and g6 where they belong. That still gives us E+H attacking options on each wing.

Some will say we need cats behind the home traps, so that we lose less if we abandon a home trap while attacking. I say Silver has no good options for abandoning a home trap in the opening, since Gold is always a turn ahead in any race attack. Because we can't afford to race, we are going to defend our home traps. As long as we must defend our home traps, let's defend them vigorously.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by camelback on Apr 11^th, 2007, 9:25pm

I also prefer 99of9 setup with cats back, because later in the game, dogs can come up and they are relatively less vulnerable than cats.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 11^th, 2007, 11:38pm

I won´t miss the chance to campaing for my own setup I´ve been toying with down here at the 1600 rating world. 8) (tough my rank has been inflating lately)

Code:

..k..k..
MHCDDEHR
RRRRRCRR

Just look at any of my recent games... Opening is always Hn En En Cn. Not quite "new", but I couldn´t learn any intrinsic weaknesses yet... The cats behind the kill houses are aiming at late-game. My usual strategy is trying to capture a horse or any other "officer"...

It doesn´t actually work well against 2000+ players tough. Just see my last 2 games against chessandgo himself to see it´s far from obvious... I would love comments about their openings, revealing my newbie naïvetè! ::) He actually manages to pull a second-rank rabbit in the beginning of one of them!!

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by arimaa_master on Apr 12^th, 2007, 3:02am

Nice explanation Karl, I agree with your suggested setup.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12^th, 2007, 5:48am

I figure I'd better mount a spirited defence of the classic 99of9 setup (cats ~~back~~ behind traps):

Dogs are only more "vigorous" when attacked by a dog. When was the last time any of us got attacked by a dog in the opening?

The pieces behind the trap are for the mid or endgame.

In the endgame it is better to have cats there and dogs further in front.

In the midgame, there is a chance that we will trade traps (silver is no different to gold by midgame). In that case, any dog or cat left there will die (attacks with dogs are still rare in midgame). So once again it's better to have a cat behind the trap.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12^th, 2007, 8:01am

on 04/12/07 at 05:48:02, 99of9 wrote:

I figure I'd better mount a spirited defence of the classic 99of9 setup (cats back):

Just so we are all speaking the same language: I think you are arguing for cats behind the traps. This is the same as what other people are calling "dogs back", in reference to e8 and d8 on the back rank.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by The_Jeh on Apr 12^th, 2007, 8:38am

Is there any merit in putting a cat behind one trap and a dog behind the other? Just thought I'd ask.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by OLTI on Apr 12^th, 2007, 8:53am

I would prefer dogs behind traps.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 12^th, 2007, 9:27am

I´m against the camel in the middle of the board... Isn´t it the most fragile stone in the opening, against someone with a phant in the middle on the other side?

A rabbit in the middle for example is a recipe for starting with a punch in the nose. I learned it the bad way... :o Why let a camel there, and not an uninteresting dog or cat, if the elephant is very probably going down there anyway? Better to keep the camel safe. I see it less as a "defense stone" and more as a burden to be taken care of! ;D It´s more useful to have it free to make a subreptitious attack after luring the phant to the other side of the board...

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12^th, 2007, 10:32am

on 04/12/07 at 08:38:50, The_Jeh wrote:

Is there any merit in putting a cat behind one trap and a dog behind the other? Just thought I'd ask.

Good question. I think I experimented with that about two years ago and rejected the idea, but my arguments (insofar as I remember them) don't persuade me now, at least not for Silver.

For Gold I want cats behind both traps so I have the option of launching a capture race. There's no point in putting a cat behind one and a dog behind the other, because my opponent will focus on the one where he can get the dog. I might as well have dogs behind both traps if I have a dog behind either.

However, as Silver, I don't plan to abandon either home trap right away. There is a fair probability that the piece that starts behind the home trap doesn't stay there, because of the common maneuver of pushing the horse up, putting the piece that was behind the trap behind the horse instead, and then putting a different piece behind the trap.

Now, what if I am likely to pull this rotation on one wing but not the other? I haven't thought about this much, but maybe I tend to rotate on the camel side more often than on the elephant side. If that's true then I might prefer to start with

Code:

..x..x..
rhcemdhr
rrrdcrrr

I'm not sure how I feel about this yet, but it seems plausible to me.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12^th, 2007, 10:36am

on 04/12/07 at 09:27:57, NIC1138 wrote:

I´m against the camel in the middle of the board... Isn´t it the most fragile stone in the opening, against someone with a phant in the middle on the other side?

Actually, it turns out that it is easier for a centralized camel to evade the opposing elephant than for a flank camel. The opposing elephant can pin a flank camel against the side of the board, which means it can't retreat even if a friendly piece is nearby to unfreeze it. True, it may take longer for an elephant to go way over to the side of the board to threaten the camel, but once the opposing elephant is near, the flank camel is in more danger.

In any event, the central camel is more of a defensive idea in my book. I want it to scare horses away from both sides. If our camel is on one wing, how do we punish a horse advance on the other wing?

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12^th, 2007, 10:45am

on 04/11/07 at 23:38:19, NIC1138 wrote:

Code:

..k..k..
MHCDDEHR
RRRRRCRR

This setup is fine if we want to attack with EH on the right and MH on the left side. It's powerful and fast, but it commits us to that one plan.

My concern is that it isn't flexible. We have only one plan then. We can't play lone-elephant attack so well (because our right flank is weaker), and we can't easily switch to EH on the left and MH on the right.

If we have EM in the middle and a horse on each flank, like the 99of9 setup, then we can do EH attack on either side with an MH attack on the other. Also we can do an EHM attack on either side, which is a reason chessandgo likes it. Most important (from my style) we have good defense on both sides, so we can do a lone-elephant attack.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by RonWeasley on Apr 12^th, 2007, 10:59am

I like camel in the middle so it can support piece pulling if I get lucky enough to do that. If the enemy elephant gets close, I hide it only then.

The rotation behind horses of the original behind trap piece is common for me and I prefer a dog doing this than the weaker cat. That's why I like dogs behind traps and cats back. This also supports the structure of strong in front and weak toward the back.

I play lone elephant and don't like race openings. In general, I try to gain tempo in the opening. I want to be able to apply a threat in fewer steps than the enemy can apply a similar threat. This should translate into me capturing a piece and threatening the next one before the enemy finishes its capture. In practice, dogs back or cats back hasn't made a big difference for me, but I still use cats back.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12^th, 2007, 1:19pm

Oh, no! Only 6 days and 22 hours left!

Just kidding. I notice we are starting with a full reserve, so there is no benefit to taking less than a week to decide on our setup. Don't let's hurry. On the other hand, since it looks like some version of 99of9 setup will win (and the cat/dog placement is a minor issue), what may take the most time is working out the last details of the voting mechanics.

How will the setups be presented? In standard Arimaa notation? As a layout? Will there be accompanying text, such as "99of9 setup, cats back"? Which setups will be part of the vote, and which won't get promoted from the discussion to the election? Even if we let each person propose one setup to be voted on, I have already proposed two. When do I have to decide which is my real proposal? When we go to vote on the move, will the name of the person proposing the move appear next to the move?

I expect we will find the best way by trial and error, and we should give Ron wide latitude to use his judgment while we work out a consensus on our favorite procedure.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 12^th, 2007, 2:17pm

Mr. president, I ask the word as leader of minority of the Lower Chamber, to ask again for considerations on our new and innovative proposals!...

I had the opportunity to execute a recent experiment about the subject in question, inviting our nemesis for a test match.

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=49719&s=b

The commander of the Axis acted as I expected, running for the middle stone and pulling it up. What better stone to spend then a cat? On the meanwhile the upper-right Red District was dominated. Unfortunately I decided to be careless about the left slaughterhouse... But had I protected it simply moving one of the nearby stones, the maneuver could have been less disastrous.

It might be a strategy to consider: leaving a cat or a rabbit in the place of that poor dog, to lure him down there, while trying to get a better control over his side. ;D But I don't quite believe he would do that... He is certainly expecting a better performance of the Mob, and would be suspicious to do something like this. :)

But I still stand up for my setup!!...

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 12^th, 2007, 2:21pm

On the cats back dogs back issue: Sometimes the stone behind the butcher shops gets pulled in the beginning, you replace it with some other nearby, and it lasts there until the endgame... In my setup I've been trying letting a dog there, and after it has to go for some reason, the second cat eventually gets there in time for the endgame... What I'm saying is: it's not obvious that the stone there will remain in first place, specially considering chessandgo's said "brutality" or whatever!! :)

How many candidates do we have so far, considering all options mentioned already??...

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by jdb on Apr 12^th, 2007, 2:53pm

Robinson and Petitprince used a non 99of9 setup in the postal tournament against chessandgo. One turned out ok and the other not so good.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Janzert on Apr 12^th, 2007, 3:50pm

I've been holding off to see what Chessandgo would open with before commenting, but after seeing it I guess it doesn't really doesn't change my feeling much.

I prefer the 99of9 setup. Cats back or dogs back is pretty much a toss up in my mind, but having golds dogs back makes me lean towards placing our cats back.

Janzert

P.S. here is a direct link to the game for anyone else that wants to bookmark it
http://www.arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/opengamewin.cgi?gameid=61083&role=v&side=b (http://www.arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/opengamewin.cgi?gameid=61083&role=v&side=b)
if you copy and paste, watch out for the space the forums seem to add into the middle of the word role

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by The_Jeh on Apr 12^th, 2007, 3:51pm

Chessandgo's setup is 99of9 with a dog displaced in the back. Fritzlein, you said that it's best not to put rabbits in the middle because they can be pulled up to the second file and hinder the movement of the camel. Why isn't Chessandgo concerned over that?

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by JacquesB on Apr 12^th, 2007, 4:00pm

For the voting notation please use standard Arimaa notation: 1w Ra2 Rb2 Mc2 Dd2 ... Only the setup move is a little long, but normal moves are treatable. Add clarifying remarks, but include the standard notation.

Many of us are not native English speakers and it may not be obvious that when you say "behind" you don't mean the same as "back".

About the camel in the middle: Pulling it in the 3rd move by gold means spending 4 steps (two of which directly contradict those made in the previous move). And that can be undone in 2 steps if the silver elephant was left in row 5 (which is a good place). Doing so, gold gives the initiative to silver for nothing. The argument is valid for other opening moves than the 3rd. Therefore, the camel is safe in the middle. If gold pulls it, he looses more than silver.

I am inclined for the "classic" setup with cc7 cf7.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12^th, 2007, 4:39pm

on 04/12/07 at 08:01:14, Fritzlein wrote:

Oops, sorry for the confusion. I usually use the same terminology as others, I just mistyped.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12^th, 2007, 5:09pm

on 04/12/07 at 15:51:48, The_Jeh wrote:

Fritzlein, you said that it's best not to put rabbits in the middle because they can be pulled up to the second file and hinder the movement of the camel. Why isn't Chessandgo concerned over that?

Based on past games, I suspect chessandgo will not leave his d1 rabbit in the middle for long. He intends to play (as part of his moves at some point in the opening) Hb2n Db1n Rc1w Rd1w. He will eventually use four steps to end up at the same place as he would end up if he started with the 99of9 setup with dogs behind the traps, and then played the four steps Hb2n Dc2w Cd1n Cd2w. Either way he gets his west wing into the same configuration.

Given that the final result is the same, and that it takes four steps to get there from the opening position, what is the point of chessandgo's move? It is a tactical subtlety that he gets where he is going while the cat is behind the trap the whole time. If the opening explodes into a race and we take over c3 before he does a rotation, then he loses a cat, not a dog. If he had started with a dog behind the c3 trap, then we could have put our cats behind our traps and raced in the opening. So if the rotation is completed, there is no difference, but chessandgo ends up better off due to the option of not completing the rotation.

I have tried to threaten chessandgo's central rabbit before he can get it to safety, but it is hopeless when he is Gold. He doesn't have to move it until we get near, and then it is a simple matter to tuck it off to the side quickly.

In my postal tournament game against chessandgo, I have Gold, and he put the rabbit in the middle as Silver. I thought I could harass either his camel or his central rabbit with elephant forward four, since he couldn't move both off to the side. Indeed I induced him to move the central rabbit the wrong way, i.e. further into the center rather than off to the side. We are a few moves removed from that, but I am taking days on my current move because I want to make sure I can safely threaten that rabbit (still in the center!) on my next move. If I eventually pull his central rabbit with no harm coming to me, then I will have won the opening, and he might not put the rabbit in the center as Silver next time. On the other hand, if it is too costly for me to chase his rabbit due to his counter-attacking, and I can't hurt his advanced pieces, then he will have won the opening by equalizing as Silver for no penalty.

Isn't it strange how the opening setup is still affecting play of that game? I still think of my postal tournament game against chessandgo as a fight about the validity of his setup as Silver, although of course it is also a fight about our respective choices since then.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12^th, 2007, 5:17pm

I don't usually hide my camel behind a trap, but since that is a real possibility, I agree with people that placing a dog behind the camel side trap is a good idea. So now I'm gunning for Fritz's second suggestion (one camel-side cat back, one dog back).

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by RonWeasley on Apr 12^th, 2007, 7:59pm

When I list votes, I plan to use standard arimaa notation, such as dc5w Cc4n ed2n Mc2w Ec3x. Good point about the language barrier. For the first move I will be descriptive but try to be unambiguous.

I don't plan to associate names with candidate moves. I don't care about who has a good idea as much as what the idea is.

As to selecting candidates, I'm going to look for any move either forcefully advocated by at least one mobster or discussed positively by more than one. I think I will list them in the forum about a day before setting up the vote so that mobsters can comment on the list.

Currently for move 1 I like both the two cats back and the one camel side cat back.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 12^th, 2007, 9:06pm

on 04/12/07 at 17:09:47, Fritzlein wrote:

Based on past games, I suspect chessandgo will not leave his d1 rabbit in the middle for long. He intends to play (as part of his moves at some point in the opening) Hb2n Db1n Rc1w Rd1w.

Sorry, ::) but I went through most of his recent games, and he frequently used this same setup, and most of the times he started moving north the phant 3 times, and a horse 1 (looks like he prefers the horse on the other side, chosing the nearer one when he is gold, and the silver phant is on the other half......). Other times he went north 4 with the elephant. Some others he went for a more "conservative" move.

Now, the middle rabbit spent the whole game in the same place in all the games I saw... It only moved forward, some times coerced. Could you post us a game where he "fixed" the rabbits to the corner??... ???

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12^th, 2007, 10:19pm

on 04/12/07 at 21:06:14, NIC1138 wrote:

Now, the middle rabbit spent the whole game in the same place in all the games I saw... It only moved forward, some times coerced. Could you post us a game where he "fixed" the rabbits to the corner??... ???

In game 44247 against me, chessandgo tucked away the central rabbit rather than let me pull it. In games 43717 and 46182 against me, he started with two back central rabbits and moved both out of the center when I threatened them. In fact, I can't recall when chessandgo has ever let me pull a central rabbit in the opening.

On the other hand, I haven't played chessandgo very often recently, and in those few games I haven't tried to play against the central rabbit (until our present postal game). Furthermore, although I try to look at all HvH games, sometimes I don't look or can't remember, so he might have changed his style recently, and/or he might play differently against different opponents.

In any case, I shouldn't state his intentions so confidently. I should just say in my experience sidestepping seems to be chessandgo's response when one tries to threaten his central rabbit, which has led me to suspect that we won't get a chance to pull it in this game either.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12^th, 2007, 10:29pm

on 04/12/07 at 17:17:32, 99of9 wrote:

So now I'm gunning for Fritz's second suggestion (one camel-side cat back, one dog back).

That's interesting, because as I think about it more, I am leaning towards cat-behind-camel, dog-behind-elephant as my first choice, and the standard 99of9 setup with cats behind both traps as my second choice. My first inclination (dogs behind traps) has slipped to third in my current ranking. I wonder what I will feel like when voting days rolls around. :P

My change of heart comes partly because I am not sure how much I like rotating the dog towards the flank after all. When I take a horse hostage with my elephant, and try to pass it off to my camel, having an extra piece on that side just gets in the way of my camel crossing over. There may be some utility in starting with back-central dogs and just leaving them there, out of the way!

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by The_Jeh on Apr 12^th, 2007, 11:38pm

With all the talk of Chessandgo's flexibility, it might be tempting to take his setup, turn it 180 degrees, and put it on our side. I am against this, however. Fritzlein, if you remember, you and I once experimented with copycat moves, and I think our unthorough research concluded it was detrimental to silver even if carried out for only three or four turns. Gold would be one move ahead, and silver would not be in a position to defend when it became unavoidable. I wouldn't want us to get into a copycatting mode. Besides, I think our setup options are just as good if not better than Chessandgo's.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by woh on Apr 13^th, 2007, 6:24am

on 04/12/07 at 10:32:06, Fritzlein wrote:

Code:

..x..x..
rhcemdhr
rrrdcrrr

I use this setup in most of my games.
I like to believe that the sides are more balanced in that way.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 13^th, 2007, 6:56am

on 04/13/07 at 06:24:27, woh wrote:

I like to believe that the sides are more balanced in that way.

...And I am a strong advocate for assymmetry!! ;)

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 13^th, 2007, 8:08am

on 04/12/07 at 22:19:39, Fritzlein wrote:

he started with two back central rabbits and moved both out of the center when I threatened them. In fact, I can't recall when chessandgo has ever let me pull a central rabbit in the opening.

Well, mr. senator, not only those games are quite old, as you "confessed", but we are talking now about wether we agree on actually threatening those central rabbits!... Have we voted on this already?? ::)

I am pro-rabbit-pulling, but not as an opening strategy!... (as our antagonist seems to be)

In my last 5 games against him, I used my "non-standard" opening, four times as silver, and once as gold. In those four games he played gold, he used that same opening.

From those four, in the last three I responded with an opposite elephant. In the oldest,

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=49285&s=w

I put my elephant in the same side as him, and he answered blocking my phant from his usual exit (I believe he is the only player to see through my cunning plan lately). In this game we evolved into a horse-hostage at 4b, then I messed up in a careless camel-attack, and we ended up trading my camel for his horse. Please, do study that game and tell me if it was not a good start!...

Now, on the rabbits issue, on all the 5 games he never took the time to take the lonesome central rabbit from there. In this game
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=49719&s=w
He advances his rabbit at 8w and I eventually kill it at 14b.

On the only game I played against him as gold, I used my gouche set-up, and he responded in a very different way!... So, I must believe that
a_ Either he was experimenting with me, as I´m a weaker player, or
b_ He actually doesn´t like something about my setup, and feels like having to open the game in a very different strategy. (At least playing as silver, I don´t know if in the 4 other games he felt like he should have started in that other fashion.)

As a weaker newbie player, I´m asking us to join forces!!... I come here with my naïve childish spirit, ::) with my enthusiasm to experiment with new things, having suffered less blows from life then you, stronger players!... :'( I ask you, join with me with what I lack: the experience and expertise to avoid making silly camel-attacks!... The best contribution I can give to this game is suggesting something unusual at the opening, breaking the paradigms, forcing us both into different new dimensions where the playing ability is what counts!

Do consider this: I´m proposing giving chessandgo an awkward opening he is not used to!... Isn´t this even one of the characteristics that make arimaa more challenging?? This is like a go championship some years ago when coreans came with an unusual opening, putting a stone in the middle of the board!... :)

I gave you some stong evidence that there might be something on this opening that he doesn´t like, and that we could have a nice start, like with that horse-hostage. Camel is protected, rabbits are protected, I look for cats behind the traps on endgame... All my arguments are on the table, all I can ask now is for you to consider the possibility, perhaps trying to play with it a bit!... Here´s the advertise!

Code:

RRRDRRDR
DHCEMCHR
..k..k..
........
........
..k..k..
rheddchm
rrcrrrrr

2w: Ee2n Ee3n Ee4e Ef4n

Finally, I would also prefer any other openings where he feels like doing something different from charging the phant north, or coming with a horse on the side. Let´s not let the man comfortable!!...

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 13^th, 2007, 8:30am

on 04/13/07 at 08:08:46, NIC1138 wrote:

In this game
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=49719&s=w
He advances his rabbit at 8w and I eventually kill it at 14b.

In that game, on 8w, advancing the rabbit was a way for chessandgo to insure that he would win your cat for his rabbit. To me it looks like a tactical theme, not a strategic one, which is to say he might not have advanced the rabbit except for immediate material gain. Also, in your earlier example, he advanced his central rabbit only after winning camel for horse. Although I am a defensive player, I, too, may start advancing rabbits if I am up a camel for a horse, because when the other player has no camel, more aggressive attacking becomes strategically sound. Thus these examples don't persuade me that chessandgo intends to advance his central rabbit in the opening, or even leave it in the center if we threaten it.

As to whether we should play usual or unusual moves, that is a question of taste. As the Romans used to say, "of taste, there is no arguing". I am Mr. Boring, but I won't be upset if you can convince a majority of voters to play something exciting. I expect the game to be fun and well-played regardless of the style.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 13^th, 2007, 9:32am

on 04/13/07 at 08:30:01, Fritzlein wrote:

In that game, on 8w, advancing the rabbit was a way for chessandgo to insure that he would win your cat for his rabbit.

Hmmm not quite sure. He was saving his camel. He could have advanced his horse and cat to unfreeze it, in two different ways, or even protected the slaughter house with his phant and still hold my cat with his horse (but he wouldn´t do that because he was actually aiming for my unprotected camel... He eventually won the game on that corner of the board he took. :( )

I don´t actually believe he would advance this central rabbit on a postal vs. Mob game. But I can´t go on saying this, it ruins my own rhetoric strategy in the political game we are playing here! :)

On that game I played silver he also uses the central rabbit to unfreeze his camel... You are saying he would be playing differently if he were feeling less confident??...

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 13^th, 2007, 9:37am

Perhaps we should vote on a more general strategy decision right now, to go on deciding the complete lay-out afterwards. Are we in for an lone-E attack, E-H (me!), E-H-H, or something much more defensive, perhaps?...

For example, are we going to put our elephant on the same half as he, or reverse? This one is a binary decision, we don´t even need Condorcet! ;D

This could be a good first voting:

E attack
E-H attack
EHH attack
EHM attack
defensive maneuvers

It´s more than natural that we do two elections on the opening scheme, since the possibilities are much numerous than during game! (at least I guess so...)

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by jdb on Apr 13^th, 2007, 10:12am

The setup Seanick used in game 49571 looks playable.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by RonWeasley on Apr 13^th, 2007, 12:14pm

On overall strategy, we need to be ready to change to take advantage of any opportunities. This may change move by move. So far, the 99of9 setup has been successfully flexible. I'm not in favor of an unusual setup here because chessandgo is a great tactician and may find a forced butt-kicking maneuver.

As far as candidate lists of moves or other issues we might vote on, after my last post I realized that it would be helpful to me (as Head Boy) if any mobster who thinks the list is settled to go ahead and write out the list. This way everybody isn't waiting for me to do it when it's obvious to most of the Mob. This would be a big help and could speed up the discussion. Please don't feel like there's some social slight in doing this! I will still be in charge of setting up the actual votes. By the way, even though I don't support choosing a strategy on move 1, thinking about it is a great suggestion. Thanx NIC1138!

For move 1 we are just about there. I have 12 mobsters on my list. Anybody want to list the candidates so far?

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Janzert on Apr 13^th, 2007, 12:45pm

Seeing as this is going to be a rather long lasting game, I think I'd rather stick with a well tried setup rather than experiment with a new one.

Anyway here are the proposals I see so far, with c&g's opening move being:
1w Ra1 Db1 Rc1 Rd1 De1 Rf1 Rg1 Rh1 Ra2 Hb2 Cc2 Md2 Ee2 Cf2 Hg2 Rh2

99of9 with dogs back:
1b ra8 rb8 rc8 dd8 de8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 hb7 cc7 ed7 me7 cf7 hg7 rh7

99of9 with cats back:
1b ra8 rb8 rc8 cd8 ce8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 hb7 dc7 ed7 me7 df7 hg7 rh7

99of9 with camel side cat back, elephant side dog back:
1b ra8 rb8 rc8 dd8 ce8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 hb7 cc7 ed7 me7 df7 hg7 rh7

NIC1138:
1b ra8 rb8 rc8 rd8 re8 cf8 rg8 rh8 ma7 hb7 cc7 dd7 de7 ef7 hg7 rh7

Seanick from 49571:
1b ra8 rb8 rc8 cd8 de8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 hb7 mc7 ed7 ce7 df7 hg7 rh7

Sorry if I missed any or typed them in wrong.

Janzert

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 13^th, 2007, 5:48pm

Gosh, when you put it that way, I guess I'm ready to vote among those five options. I'm itching to start beating up our opponent. On the other hand, if we have five more days, it is much wiser to have the election span the last two days than span all five days. I suppose pushing for an early vote will only be appropriate if we have dipped into our reserve and would like to build it back up again. I can be patient if I have to. [sigh]

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by RonWeasley on Apr 13^th, 2007, 8:22pm

I'd like to start the voting Monday.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 13^th, 2007, 9:54pm

on 04/13/07 at 10:12:50, jdb wrote:

The setup Seanick used in game 49571 looks playable.

Continuing the extremely deep, wide, large, profound, wondrous and empty and pointless discussion on chessandgo´s central rabbit, in this game he actually dodged when threatened by an elephant, but went to the other central house, at 5w. At 26w he advanced the hare in question...

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 13^th, 2007, 10:42pm

on 04/13/07 at 12:14:04, RonWeasley wrote:

By the way, even though I don't support choosing a strategy on move 1, thinking about it is a great suggestion.

The idea is just that most initial setups are already aiming for some kind of initial attack... If we decide on the "general", then we can vote on subtleties like the 4 possible cat/dog, or the 3 possible horse/camel permutations...

I´m not proposing to chose on long-term strategies like "strictly hard-core rabbit pulling", or "capturing whatever ´officer´ stone we can" or, I dunno, "swarming"... I would just like to decide on what we expect would be our next move. I personally can´t lay out the stones without imagining one ot two possible moves to do next!

If we decide on E-H-H, for example, like in that Seanick game, the setup already starts to get defined, and we can move on to decide on smaller aspects...

Or we could already decide, for example, on the rabbits:

1_ All back, in the first line (very unusual... we would call this a "zebra" candidate, in Brazil! ;) )
2_ Two ahead on corners, with a hole in the center (is that a necessary and sufficient condition to the so-called 99of9 setup??)
3_ Two ahead on corners, little lemon twist in the center (chessandgo) (( a.k.a. "the old switcheroo"! ))
4_ Two ahead, together in a corner (I´ve seen this sometimes)
5_ One ahead on corner, hole behind a kill house (my own)
6_ All in front line (hard-core chess player)
7_ ???

I would like to vote on this, to stop preaching for my bizarre setup already, and perhaps start some more "mainstream" contributions! :]

Is there actually any chance option 2 would not get chosen?... Can we decide this already here on the forum perhaps??...

Another interesting option would be voting for symmetrical vs. assymmetrical and oposite vs in-the-same-side elephant... AFAIK, most people have pretty strong opinions about these "general" characteristics I´m saying... Or is there any chance each of the 4 combinations between these 2 variables have a single candidate that should run against candidates of the other "parties"??...

Are we going to determine the largest party first, to chose a candidate inside it, or pick the best candidate from each party, and make them run against each other? Can we vote on this?? ::)

(Now, is there a wikibook entry about "THE 99of9 setup" that I can read afterall?? I didn´t knew it was so widespread!... I´m a completely jazzy / hippie / zen / go-with-the-flow player! 8) Never took the time to look deeply into "stabilished" things like that!...)

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by 99of9 on Apr 13^th, 2007, 11:01pm

You are right that all setups impose limitations on the types of strategy that are possible.

For example, if anyone wants to do an EHH attack, they should NOT setup with the 99of9 setup (defined here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Arimaa/Introduction_to_Strategy/Intial_Piece_Placement).

However the 99of9 setup is quite flexible, and allows for Lone-E, and EH attacks on both wings. More importantly it was designed explicitly to be solid against all types of attack. Even if we want to play aggressively, solid defence will nearly always be required.

In my opinion the silver players must concentrate even more on good defensive structure, because we are one move down, and chessandgo's elephant will soon be near our backline.

All the discussion about cat-dog switching variants is a relatively subtle point, and I think everyone would agree it doesn't make much difference, but we are aiming to do the best we can do.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by The_Jeh on Apr 13^th, 2007, 11:34pm

A vote for a move is also a vote for all that results from it, including the strategies it makes possible. So in a sense, your desire to vote on a strategy is already taking place, NIC1138. Unless we start censoring (heaven forbid) the aberrant, voting on a strategy will have no effect, as it doesn't change the actual state of the game.

If we agree with the strategies you present to us, we will vote for the moves that complement them in the best way.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by JacquesB on Apr 14^th, 2007, 3:17pm

I think most people is with the 99of9 setup.

Another reason in favor is: It is a "classic". I think this game is a place to experiment a new decision procedure that had never been done before. It is not the place to experiment strategies. It is way too slow and costs too much effort to make the whole thing fail because we tried something "too new". I don't want to sound as if I didn't like experimenting. I do, I love it, but not in this game.

Many of us (and probably more as new people joins) are weak players who want to learn "how the minds of the masters work". After the game, a selection of the best analysis posts move by move can make a good wikibook. AFAIK, the first Arimaa commented games book.

Maybe the 2018 APLWC (Arimaa Professional League World Champion) learned the game with this wikibook. ... :-)

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 14^th, 2007, 3:28pm

on 04/14/07 at 15:17:17, JacquesB wrote:

I don't want to sound as if I didn't like experimenting. I do, I love it, but not in this game.

If we vote in that list up there, we might be surprised by the outcome a Condorcet election might give us... Suppose my rhetoric subterfuges actually appeal to your "inner elephant", and I actually convince some people that they should vote for "me". It could happen that many people vote for one of the 99o9 setups (between the cat / dog different arrangements), and in my proposal in second place, just to feel like "well, I also like experimenting"... If many people do this, chosing between the similar 99/9 setups, my crackpot lay-out might come out as a winner! ;D

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by RonWeasley on Apr 14^th, 2007, 7:09pm

Occasionally I have expressed a desire for a collection of annotated master games. I really like the wikibook idea. This game and some in the past that have been annotated in the comment section would be a great resource for new and intermediate players.

Many games from the first owl (postal) tournament are commented.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by The_Jeh on Apr 15^th, 2007, 12:27am

I have updated the "About This Game" thread to more accurately describe the intent of this game. JacquesB is right. This game is not for haphazard experimentation of new ideas. It is for bringing together all that we have learned over the years to play the best game of Arimaa ever and bring the World Champion to his knees. I term this game "experimental" because an organization of this type has never been tried before.

By the way, I think I am ready to vote. Janzert's list looks complete. Did you say voting happens on Monday? When do the polls close?

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 15^th, 2007, 11:54am

on 04/15/07 at 00:27:59, The_Jeh wrote:

I have updated the "About This Game" thread to more accurately describe the intent of this game.

Heheh. My intent is to cooperatively find the best possible move, whether it is old or new, passive or aggressive, boring or exciting. Games are the most rewarding when they are played to win. Furthermore, I think this particular game could especially benefit the Arimaa community by encouraging an exchange of strategic ideas and collective analysis.

That said, one of the funny things about democracy is that it becomes whatever the voters want it to be. As soon as a majority of voters decides that this game is about making a big "W" out of our rabbits, then that's what the game is about. There's no way to have a democracy and also keep things predictable. You just have to ride the wave. :)

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by The_Jeh on Apr 15^th, 2007, 5:02pm

Well said. My intent is the same as yours. I guess I'm wasting server space when I campaign for a whatever-it-takes-to-win attitude, because I'm sure most people are thinking the same way.

I hope Chessandgo doesn't feel too left out. He could have a lot of catching-up to do if we do discover something in the process.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by RonWeasley on Apr 16^th, 2007, 8:15am

The voting has begun. I have 14 voters registered. If you didn't get an e-mail and would still like to vote (jdb?), send your e-mail address to my muggle friend (in the About Topic) and you can be added to the list of voters, even for this move. I voted and it appears to be working. If I see all votes cast before end of day Tuesday, I will just stop the election and make the move. If we get fewer than 10 voters by end of Tuesday, I will give it more time.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by IdahoEv on Apr 17^th, 2007, 2:18pm

on 04/15/07 at 11:54:11, Fritzlein wrote:

As soon as a majority of voters decides that this game is about making a big "W" out of our rabbits, then that's what the game is about.

I suspect chessandgo might put a crimp in that plan.

I voted.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 17^th, 2007, 7:42pm

I voted allright.... Pity I haven't been able to log in propely these days!... I did't quite like that my proposal ran in the "same level" of the others... I would rather have had a "different rabbit lay-out, and further discussion" option.

I do understand that the 99o9 lay-out seems a popular choice, and voting already on the subtleties saves our time... But if we were going to take my proposal seriously, all its subtle similar lay-outs should have ran together!!... You picked a specific version of my setup, when it should have been a "general" one, as we have considered 3 versions o the "general" 99o9 setup. Also if anybody else would like to vote on a non-99o9 setup, all he has is the 99o9-esque setup from seanick, or that specific setup of mine.

So, my specific ideology ran representing all the "pariahs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraiyar) of openings", all the "alternative" openings, as if an american communist voter would like to vote for Perot or Ralph Nader just because they are neither republicans or democrats!... That's de-mock-racy!!! ;D Please, on the next Mob game, let's have a little more complex ballot for the opening!... (not that I do believe it will make much of a difference)

I promess that in the next moves I won't make more rhetoric political intense speeches!... ::) And thanks for putting me in the ballot, by the way! :)

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Janzert on Apr 18^th, 2007, 12:29am

on 04/17/07 at 19:42:43, NIC1138 wrote:

But if we were going to take my proposal seriously, all its subtle similar lay-outs should have ran together!!... You picked a specific version of my setup, when it should have been a "general" one, as we have considered 3 versions o the "general" 99o9 setup. Also if anybody else would like to vote on a non-99o9 setup, all he has is the 99o9-esque setup from seanick, or that specific setup of mine.

Sorry when I made the list up I only saw one specific layout that you proposed (although mirror imaged to begin with, I assume that was changed just to match the side c&g ended up with his elephant on). Had I seen more specific proposals I would have been happy to add more to the list and certainly I hope you would feel free to post your own list if you wanted to.

Janzert

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by RonWeasley on Apr 18^th, 2007, 7:39am

Mob rule has chosen the one cat, one dog back formation! 15 voters registered and all 15 voted. Only 2 voters waited until the last day.

I will try to enter some trash talk into the game chat this week.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 18^th, 2007, 9:16am

Wow, 15 voters! That's a fantastic start. I wonder if we can keep up that level of participation. It won't be long before the main discussion is not about minor variations of a consensus strategy, but rather about sharply differing strategies. Our setup is flexible enough to allow all sorts of attack and defense, but what would we prefer to do? The most fundamental is: Would we rather launch some form of an EH attack or defend against some form of an EH attack?

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 18^th, 2007, 1:43pm

For historical interest, we should record the voting preferences:

1. 99of9 with camel side cat back, elephant side dog back: 1b ra8 rb8 rc8 dd8 ce8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 hb7 cc7 ed7 me7 df7 hg7 rh7
2. 99of9 with dogs back: 1b ra8 rb8 rc8 dd8 de8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 hb7 cc7 ed7 me7 cf7 hg7 rh7
3. 99of9 with cats back: 1b ra8 rb8 rc8 cd8 ce8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 hb7 dc7 ed7 me7 df7 hg7 rh7
4. Seanick from 49571: 1b ra8 rb8 rc8 cd8 de8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 hb7 mc7 ed7 ce7 df7 hg7 rh7
5. NIC1138: 1b ra8 rb8 rc8 rd8 re8 cf8 rg8 rh8 ma7 hb7 cc7 dd7 de7 ef7 hg7 rh7

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. - 8 6 11 12
2. 6 - 9 12 13
3. 5 5 - 12 13
4. 2 2 2 - 8
5. 1 1 1 3 -

It was a close three-way race between cats back, dogs back, and one of each. NIC, I am sorry to say that if we had voted first between "Some kind of 99of9" and "Something Else", then "Something Else" would have lost by approximately 2 to 12.

The beauty of Condorcet voting, however, is that we don't need multiple layers of voting. We can put in as many alternatives as we like, and vote on all of them at the same time.

We have no idea how many voters really preferred Nader over Gore and Bush, because we didn't have preferential voting, so most considered they would be throwing away their vote on Nader. With Condorcet voting, introducing more candidates doesn't upset the balance, and everyone can vote for their true preference. Furthermore, with a complete result matrix, you can see all the preferences. It didn't matter that there were three versions of 99of9: we can see that each non-99of9 setup would have lost to each 99of9 setup. Adding more non-99of9 setups would have shown this in more ways, that's all.

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by NIC1138 on Apr 18^th, 2007, 10:42pm

on 04/18/07 at 13:43:32, Fritzlein wrote:

It was a close three-way race between cats back, dogs back, and one of each.
NIC, I am sorry to say that if we had voted first between "Some kind of 99of9"
and "Something Else", then "Something Else" would have lost by approximately 2
to 12.

I don't like to "kick the dead dog", but that's exactly the point of what I was
saying! It not right to make my lay-out proposal stand for "any other non-99o9
setup". My setup was a specific one. It might have been the case that a voter
didn't want to propose anything, but didn't like the 99of9 setup... But that's
no reason to vote for mine!...

Quote:

The beauty of Condorcet voting, however, is that we don't need multiple
layers of voting. We can put in as many alternatives as we like, and vote on
all of them at the same time.

Sure, but it can start to get messy!... We could have put all the possible
x^n!/Gamma(17) openings in the ballot, but who would like to go through all the list to
select all the possible 2*(3*(5*4)) 99o9-like setups with horses on the sides over my
crackpot proposals, for example? (this number is exact! :) )

To be absolutely "democratic", we would need this whole-world ballot. Since
it's counter-productive, we need to introduce the "layers" you mentioned. Each
time we vote in a layer, we prune out some trees of possibilities. We can speed
up the process already presenting one of the branches in "expanded" form,
presenting subtleties of the branch we believe would already win in a
"higher-level" voting.

I don't think this will be needed in the rest of the match (let's see), just
the "forum filtering" should be OK, but I think it would have been much more
fun to see a more complicated ballot in the opening.

Quote:

It didn't matter that there were three versions of 99of9: we can see that each non-99of9 setup would have lost to each 99of9 setup. Adding more non-99of9 setups would have shown this in more ways, that's all.

That if the concept a 99of9 setup is not related just to rabbits, and excludes
bad ideas as putting your elephant in the center, ahead of your opponent's, or
putting the horses in the back line, or you elephant and camel in the back
line... These characteristics would sure make a voter kick down those
candidates.

It might be obvious in that cases, but If we study many options, I'm sure we
would find a gray area where alternatives to the 99of9 a.k.a. "scary bunnies"
setup might not look so bad (as chessandgo's own setup). Of couse I don't
propose us to do a big study like that in a real-world like now.

Making a poll like this might even be a way to define the 99of9 setup concept!! ;D

In a presidential campaing we never have an option like "somebody else". But
some naïve people (here in Brazil at least) like the idea, and even advocate
that we should have something like that in our elections. I counter the idea
for political elections, but for an arimaa game opening I think it fits!... And it
would have brought a great legitimacy to the still uncertain "forum-picked options" process! :)

Don't get me wrong, guys, I'm totally sactisfied with the elections!!... :-* I do
hope tough that I can appeal to your feelings, and we can see something more
flexible in the next mob game opening ballot!... The only reason I'm spending so
much time on the subject is that I'm aiming the discussion to imagine how would
it be an A.I. program deciding moves based on this election scheme! 8)

Title: Re: Move 1
Post by 99of9 on Sep 16^th, 2008, 11:18pm

Maybe it's bad to start the post-mortem before the game is over, but now that all we've got is cats and dogs, all the original arguments seem so much more important! I think our final vote was justified by move 28b when our camel-side dog made a quick attack after horses had already been exchanged. Our elephant-side cat may also have played a role in move 20b, because our eventual move included hanging the cat, which would have been a riskier prospect if it were a dog.