|
||||||||
|
Title: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 18th, 2007, 9:06am I'll bet a nickel chessandgo plays 2w Ee2n Ee3n Ee4n Hg2n. It isn't quite as flexible as 2w Ee2n Ee3n Hb2n Hg2n, but it is much more forcing, and gives us an immediate puzzle to solve. He would be threatening an immediate EH attack on our f6 trap, but if we put our own horse on g6 to hinder the EH attack, he can use his elephant to attack our horse instead. I haven't found any clear way to equalize as Silver. It seems to me that no matter what we do, Gold can get some small initiative out of this opening. (Which incidentally is why I believe that Gold must have an advantage from the first move) Therefore I see our move as a choice of which option is the least unsatisfactory. Recently I have been leaning toward 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s as my favorite response. Yes, he can harass our horse on g6 with his elephant, but our elephant is quite active and flexible as well, able to defend if necessary as well as able to counter-attack the center if he decentralizes his elephant. However, because this move isn't completely satisfying, I'm also open to alternatives. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by seanick on Apr 18th, 2007, 11:32am I guess in this position I tend to prefer 2b ed7s hg7s df7e me7e but then it usually doesn't involve a camel, and a large reason for me liking it is that it is not the usual response others use in that situation. maybe that alone is reason not to consider it. however, the reasoning for it is that it is difficult to catch the horse in any real danger, without directly chasing it up the h file with E. (which of course puts gold off center even moreso than if an attack is launched vs. 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s ). the primary drawback being that it is extremely passive as a response, and we really shouldn't go that easy on someone who really deserves more of a battle. still, I thought I should at least chime in on one move of this game, and this is as good a move as any. (also this is the first I heard of the game actually being in progress.) -NICK |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 18th, 2007, 12:41pm on 04/18/07 at 11:32:31, seanick wrote:
I generally don't mind defensive moves. (Some would call that the understatement of the year :P) However, there's a reason I don't want to be passive here. After 2w Ee2n Ee3n Ee4n Hg2n 2b ed7s hg7s df7e me7e, I don't see a good answer to 3w Ee5e Ef5e hg6w Eg5s. He would be threatening to pull our h-rabbit, and we couldn't stop it. Admittedly, he would have decentralized his elephant, but so what? Is there a way for us to take advantage of it? If we can refute that attempt to pull a rabbit for no compensating weakness, then I like your suggestion just fine. In contrast, after 2w Ee2n Ee3n Ee4n Hg2n 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s, he can still make a threat to pull a rabbit that we can't stop, but now our elephant is poised to do damage in the center. We can at least complicate and threaten to get something back. That should concern chessandgo even more in this game with his rabbit dangling on d1. These are just general impressions based on experience, and we should look at specific variations before accepting any conclusions. Chessandgo may get an advantage for no compensation no matter what we do. I just want to be clear about my vague fear: namely that playing passively makes it too easy on him, because it is tantamount to saying, "Here, pull a rabbit before I really get started." |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by jdb on Apr 18th, 2007, 1:30pm Quote:
3b ed6s ed5s ed4s hf6w I'm not sure what gold would do next, but if he drags the rabbit, silver has at worst a grip on gold's camel. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 19th, 2007, 10:20am Hmm, that actually that seems to work, JDB. If chessandgo didn't have that central rabbit, I'm not sure we could dig around in the center fast enough to get compensation, but as it stands, something like 2w Ee2n Ee3n Ee4n Hg2n 2b ed7s hg7s df7e me7e 3w Ee5e Ef5e hg6w Eg5s 3b ed6s ed5s ed4s hf6w 4w Eg6e dg7s Cc2w Md2w 4b ed3s he6e dg6n hf6w 5w Eh6s rh7s Eh5s rh6s 5b ed2n Rd1n ed3n Rd2n appears to leave us in fine shape. Of course it is more complicated than this, but my cursory look suggests that you are right: chessandgo can't afford to decentralize his elephant. He has to get his rabbit out of the center first. I withdraw my objection to seanick's suggestion for 2w, pending further investigation. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by RonWeasley on Apr 19th, 2007, 12:18pm I can't make your 4w happen because of the horse on b2. If I'm right, C&G has the problem of how to safen his camel and the d1 rabbit. However, 4w Hb2n Cc2w Md2w xxxx protects the camel and leaves his rabbit exposed while our h7 rabbit is exposed after we walk our dog (maybe mf7s dg7w df7w mf6n). Our e is in the center but his E is going to pull rabbits that can't get much support. So I don't favor this line if I'm seeing it right. Overall, C&G likes to attack with EH with a backup M and often a H on the other side. He tries to get Rs down the a and h files to the 7th rank and likes smaller pieces and Rs to support the heavy pieces from the 3rd and 4th ranks. A defensive player like me gets pinned in the back ranks. If I attack his E (or as strong a piece as needed) has been ready to switch to defense. He does this by committing my strongest pieces to duty against a lesser set of his pieces. Actually, I think all the good players try to do this last strategy, and some of you are good at it. I think the best games against C&G incorporate a similar strategy against him. An attack by strong pieces, usually a supported EH, must be present. This keeps some of his force on defense and softens his attack. Considering this, I support a three elephant forward response and a horse on g7. Whatever we do, we need the horse on g7. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by jdb on Apr 19th, 2007, 12:38pm Quote:
I'll assume you mean a horse on g6. This protects against gold getting a nasty E on e6 and H on g6, which is not good at all for silver. What happens if gold then plays 4w H->h6 Silver cant stop the rabbit drag on the h file. Can silver get enough compensation somewhere else? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 19th, 2007, 1:28pm on 04/19/07 at 12:38:11, jdb wrote:
Do you mean 3w H->h6 ? after 2w Ee2n Ee3n Ee4n Hg2n 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s 3w Hg3n Hg4n Hg5e Hh5n 3b rh7w ed4s Md2e ed3s it appears to me we would have plenty of play in the center. I doubt chessandgo will advance that horse before consolidating at home, assuming we advance our own elephant three on 2b. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by jdb on Apr 19th, 2007, 3:45pm Thanks for typing out the correct line. What if gold plays 4w Me2n De1n Rd1e Hb2n ? It threatens to bury, but not quite blockade the silver elephant. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 19th, 2007, 9:16pm The style of this opening we played is neither defensive nor agressive. It's BDSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdsm)! You people must like to suffer!! Either that, or we are letting "some of the players" ::) here try to uncontinously play bad just to prove their (equivocate!) convictions on instrinsic advantage for gold in the opening. That's the same reason we musn't let a bot programmer represent us at the Arimaa challenge!... We should be discussing this move already at the previous!!... >:( We all knew this is the opening chessandgo prefers!... At least I did. :P And we let him do it, playing in a comfortable position... I tought you guys wanted to give him a hard time! How close are we to acomplish this at this moment?... I confess I did a lousy opposition too... I talked too much about alternatives instead of trying to point flaws on the leading candidates. :-[ OK, now here goes my proposal, a defensive one: ed7s me7s me6e mf6e. It takes advantage of the fact we don't have rabbits to protect at the center. There is plenty of time to save the camel too, whatever he tries to do to it. Now, I would like to reiterate already: if we ever get to threaten his camel up there, I don't think he will be concerned about his rabbit at the center. I think if we pull it, he might even like it!... Even tough we believe it's a bad thing to do to him (again, the BDSM, you know... 8) ) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by The_Jeh on Apr 19th, 2007, 10:23pm If you put the camel on g6, he's just going to pull it to g5. It might not be so easy saving it as you might think. He'll force us to bring our elephant to the rescue, pulling us into a boggy rescue operation. Additionally, having both our elephant and camel tied up on the east side leaves the c6 trap vulnerable to a potential MH attack. And our flexible opening position is about as good as you can get. If we'd built it specifically to combat his habitual opening, he could have just switched it on us, leaving us with our hands tied. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 20th, 2007, 1:48am There is another move I was going to propose, but then I saw the imminent EH take-over, and changed my mind. But now I'm back thinking it's actually quite a good idea. Just charge with the phant already: 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4s. (and not later on) just like in one of the most traditional openings... It's asking for it!... Forget already that we are silver. Jean can't make any damage right now. If he really decides for wasting the 4 moves in taking over the house, we can choose: push the camel and kill the western cat, or kill the eastern cat (not best). He might go for it, and trade it for our dog... (who voted for placing that dog there afteral!?? :D I did... :'( ) If we choose to kill the western cat, then after spending 3 (or 4) moves killing the dog, there is no way he can protect his western trap. This means we would waste his horse. I doubt very much Jean would accept all those bloody tradings... Even if he does, I didn't find and "chain of events" with massive slaughtering leading to an obvious advantage to him. If we go as far as killing the cat he would probably do something in his field instead of exploring out captured trap. ...And for the camel hijacking, I do see the MH attack threat, but how would he pull our camel it so inexorably?? And why would it be better to leave the horse there to be sacrificed?... Would our spared camel pose a new threat? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 20th, 2007, 2:06am Anyone know how to set up some kind of Tree on a wiki so we can consider moves and responses to an indefinite depth without confusing ourselves? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by arimaa_master on Apr 20th, 2007, 3:09am on 04/19/07 at 15:45:27, jdb wrote:
I think your 4w is very solid. We can try to play: 4b ed2n Me3n ed3e hb7s but I don´t see any initiative for us after: 5w Me4e Ee5s Cc2e Db1n Or can we afford something crazy like: 4b Cc2n ed2w ec2w me7w ? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by JacquesB on Apr 20th, 2007, 5:34am Here is a set of questions a 1500-1600 Elo reader might find interesting. Don't think I don't follow this discussion just because I don't post. Its just that the opening requires a lot of experience I don't have. I hope to be more useful later in the game. Specially if I find the time (I don't know when) to code something I am speculating with. 1." .. but if we put our own horse on g6 to hinder the EH attack, he can use his elephant to attack our horse instead. " Is this attack valid? A horse hostage on the opponent's side is a bad idea. And anyway, is a horse hostage worth the reduction of elephant's mobility when the attacker does not win the strongest free piece (as in a camel hostage)? If the attacker only wants to pull it out, that's not a very serious attack since he would be wasting his initiative doing slow moves that can be undone. 2. ".. if he decentralizes his elephant." That can be found in many posts. Why is this important? When I am afraid of my opponent (which by the way is not a good idea, you may suffer position "erosion") I always count piece by piece if my pieces are more or less in the same columns as his. If he decentralizes his elephant, so would I. But since "the mob" is maybe 2200 Elo decentralizing the phant against us should expose some weakness we can exploit. Is that what you mean? 3. ".. in this game with his rabbit dangling on d1." What's the problem with this? I would understand the setup where that rabbit was in b1 i.o. the dog more easily. I understand he did that to use the dog to control b3 when the horse in b2 has gone hunting. Is that correct? But returning to the rabbit, it will only take part in the game much later. Since there are 8 rabbits, is it a good idea if a lonely rabbit tries a central path i.o. the usual paths on the side? I can imagine pros for this idea: A single advance threat does not work unless it is very well backed up, but many simultaneous threats may work just because the defender cannot defend them all. Also, this rabbit can free a frozen piece even at the price of exposing itself too much. Even if its lost, I may have given enough worries to the opponent to be worth the small sacrifice. 4. .. Predictions from 2w to 5b: I'm really impressed! I take notes and will check if the game follows that ;-) I never imagined you could anticipate so much. Now I understand why some opponents (specially Olti and Camelback) are torturing my poor innocent pieces so badly in the postal tournament. ;-) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 20th, 2007, 7:21am OK, I've finally had a chance to look at it. I know you guys are all thinking far ahead about Jean attacking our horse or h-rabbit, but I'm a bit worried about this move of his: 3w Ee5w Ed5n Ed6n Hb2n From there he could: * Attack our camel * Attack our c-rabbit * Go behind our trap onto b7 threatening either our b-horse or a-rabbit So, unless you have a good response to that (E blockade maybe?)... ... I think we should consider the preventative move: 2b ed7s ed6s hg7s dd8s |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 20th, 2007, 7:57am Ok, just an extra point of information... In my postal against chessandgo, I played Karl's suggestion, and chessandgo replied as follows: 3w Ee5n Ee6w Hb2n Db1n How would you continue against that Karl? My reply sequence was clearly not good enough, as he was soon up by a solid horse hostage. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by jdb on Apr 20th, 2007, 8:50am Quote:
Nice questions. I'll try and answer as best I can. Attacking the horse on g6 with gold's elephant is questionable because it does not provide enough compensation for decentralizing the elephant. Taking a horse hostage with the elephant is not worth too much. However, taking the horse hostage with a camel is valuable. In general terms it is not a good idea to decentralize the elephant. The elephant is the only piece that can protect a trap square on its own. When tactics happen, it is very important to be able to position the elephant next to any of the trap squares. Just count how many steps it takes the elephant to reach all the trap squares when its in the centre, compared to on the side. When the elephant is on the side, an alert opponent would be looking for tactical opportunities on the other side of the board. A rabbit on d1 is much easier to drag than a rabbit on c1. On d1, the elephant can start on d3, drag the rabbit and return to d3. On c1, the elephant ends its turn on d2, and if c2 is occupied it has to start its turn on d2 also. An elephant on d2 is vulnerable to a blockade, where on d3 it is not. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 20th, 2007, 11:04am on 04/20/07 at 08:50:47, jdb wrote:
...And how do you see my proposal of taking the camel to g6? Could it be valuable enough? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 20th, 2007, 11:32am So many posts, so little time! The one I can't resist answering immediately: on 04/20/07 at 05:34:22, JacquesB wrote:
To my understanding, the most important open question of Arimaa theory is when and whether it is an advantage to take an opposing horse hostage with one's elephant. This is NOT settled. Let's suppose for a second that it is always a bad idea to take an opposing horse hostage with your elephant. The consequence would be the extinction of lone-elephant attackers like myself. If I tried to attack with my elephant alone, the other player would always launch a more forceful elephant-horse attack, so I would have to come home with my elephant, and I would get stuck holding his horse hostage with my elephant, a disadvantage to me. To avoid this, I would have to try to launch an elehpant-horse attack myself, in order to get in the first shot. But there are two ways in which the elephant holding the horse hostage can make it into an advantage. Either the horse hostage can be framed, or it can be passed off to a friendly camel, freeing the elephant to do damage elsewhere. An example of the horse frame happened in the ongoing postal game Brendan vs. chessandgo. Brendan gave chessandgo a free horse hostage, maybe erroneously thinking it was not a disadvantage. Chessandgo framed that horse for a clearly superior position, which has converted to a material advantage of two horses for a camel. An example of camel-holding-horse is the ongoing postal game arimaa_master vs. Fritzlein. I went after his attacking horse with my elephant, and eventually got that horse as a hostage of my camel. This was clearly worth more than the rabbit pull he got. Indeed, it is possible (and we used to all think it was true) that taking a horse hostage with your elephant is always a good idea. If this is the reality, then it isn't the lone-elephant attackers that will die out, it will be the elephant-horse attackers. They will get into trouble every time they expose a horse, and eventually they will get tired of always being at a disadvantage, and will switch to more conservative play. My current belief is that the truth is somewhere in between. Sometimes an elephant holding a horse hostage is good, and sometimes it is bad. This is closely related to my belief that sometimes an elephant-horse attack is sound, and sometimes it is unsound. Chessandgo's current game against Brendan should be a caution to those who think that chessandgo will be thrown off balance by having to defend against an elephant-horse attack instead of being able to launch his own elephant-horse attack. On the contrary, he can play just fine on either side of the situation. Quote:
A centralized elephant can attack or defend at any of the four traps. A decentralized elephant can attack or defend only at two. Sometimes the difference matters and sometimes it doesn't. After seanick's move and the response I feared, the more important consideration is not whether he can operate on the other wing, so much as whether can win the race to pull something. An additional subtle point that if one elephant is decentralized, the opposing camel gains additional freedom of movement. That doesn't seem to matter in the present opening, though. Quote:
As jdb says, it saves us a few steps in the dual-lone-elephant rabbit-pulling race. In fact, it might tip the balance of that race enough that chessandgo can't afford to let the game become a dual-lone-elephant rabbit-pulling race. There are some heretics that don't mind advanced rabbits in the opening, most notably blue22. However, the large majority of top players would consider any rabbit advance this early to be a disadvantage. The advantages in terms of unfreezing pieces don't matter until some pieces (besides elephants and horses) are exposed. The advantages in terms of goal threats don't occur until much later. Quote:
Don't worry, our opening theory will be exhausted after one more move at most, and then we will have no idea what chessandgo will do. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 20th, 2007, 11:45am on 04/20/07 at 11:04:31, NIC1138 wrote:
That camel on g6 wouldn't get a chance to take a horse hostage, because chessandgo wouldn't advance his g3 horse into the teeth of our camel. Instead chessandgo could advance his other horse up the b-file with no fear, because our camel is so far away. This consideration (not danger to our camel) is the primary reason I would recommend against your proposed move. Chessandgo once told me that one of his main objectives in the opening is to make the opposing camel commit to one wing, so that he can safely launch an elephant-horse attack on the other wing. In that context I would advise against voluntarily decentralizing our camel, unless it leads to some attacking possibilities. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 20th, 2007, 1:11pm on 04/20/07 at 01:48:22, NIC1138 wrote:
The way I calculate it the results of the bloodbath is: 2b Silver elephant attack 3w Gold elephant-horse attack 3b Silver captures a cat 4w Gold captures a dog 4b Silver captures a horse 5w Gold captures a camel Seems to me we get the short end of the deal, even though we get to make the first capture. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 20th, 2007, 1:51pm on 04/20/07 at 07:57:22, 99of9 wrote:
If he puts his elephant between our traps as he did against you 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s 3w Ee5n Ee6w Hb2n Db1n then I don't think we should try to win a race to pull something. I would probably play the defensive 3b ed4n hb7s xxxx xxxx and I would NOT decentralize the camel until I had to. With our elephant near home and no central rabbits, we can probably prevent his lone elephant from getting anything, even a rabbit pull. If he attacks with a horse as well, we are in a better position to respond in a way that hurts him than if our own elephant is off hunting rabbits. If he just diddles around, we can find ways to slowly improve our position and eventually threaten an attack of our own. on 04/20/07 at 07:21:27, 99of9 wrote:
Actually that move looks more critical to me too, but it turns out the threat to our camel is illusory. For example, after 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s 3w Ee5w Ed5n Ed6n Hb2n 3b ed4n ed5n hb7s cc7w He can't pull our rabbit without getting blockaded, so... 4w me7s Ed7e me6s Ee7s 5b ed6s me5e ed5e xxx And suddenly his elephant needs to scramble to prevent our camel from getting his g3 horse hostage. I learned that 5b maneuver from chessandgo himself... In any event, your prophylactic move 2b ed7s ed6s hg7s dd8s doesn't look bad, I just don't think it is necessary, and I think our elephant on d4 gives us better options against his lone-elephant-attacks-our-flank strategies. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 20th, 2007, 2:06pm on 04/19/07 at 15:45:27, jdb wrote:
My general experience has been that pieces which try to threaten to blockade an opposing elephant without the help of the friendly elephant will just get themselves in trouble. After 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s 3w Hg3n Hg4n Hg5e Hh5n 3b rh7w ed4s Md2e ed3s 4w Me2n De1n Rd1e Hb2n My instinct says there must be some way to take advantage of the exposed gold pieces. What about 4b ed2n Me3n ed3e hb7s threating to capture a piece or harass the camel? Note that if his elephant leaves e5, our camel can zip to g6 for a free horse hostage. There are lots of possible lines in a wild opening like that, but my gut feel is that we stand no worse and probably better. That's not even counting our other options on 3b. I think 3w in this line is dubious and basically throws away the first-move advantage, so I don't expect to see it. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 20th, 2007, 2:28pm Incidentally, let me give my justification of 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s, rather than just poking at other moves. I suggest the move as a defense against 3w Ee5e Ef5e Eg5w hg6s. If our elephant is on d4, we can play 3w ed4e ee4e ef4e hg5n, and Gold has lost the advantage of the opening move. Therefore 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s prevents 3w Ee5e Ef5e Eg5w hg6s. Other moves such as 2b ed7s ed6s hg7s hb7s (somewhat common in the postal tournament) 2b ed7s ed6s hg7s dd8s (99of9) 2b ed7s hg7s df7e me7e (seanick) all permit 3w Ee5e Ef5e Eg5w hg6s I can hear the collective cries of, "So what?" Who cares if he pulls our horse? Well, in my (rapidly-shrinking) world of defensive play, this horse hostage is one that gives a slight advantage to the hostage-taker. I don't want chessandgo to drag our horse home to frame it and/or pass it off to his camel. Some may say that, even if grabbing the horse would be a slight advantage to chessandgo, we needn't worry about it, because there is no way he will take a horse hostage rather than starting an elephant-horse attack. I'm not sure that is true, and in any case it is bad practice to count on your opponent not to make the best move. If we permit chessandgo to play 3w Ee5e Ef5e Eg5w hg6s, then it should be because we believe it is not dangerous. Another objection could be, "Why should we listen to you if chessandgo is beating you in the postal tournament?" Er... well... um... maybe I should spend some time on that game instead of posting endlessly here. :-[ |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 20th, 2007, 9:52pm on 04/20/07 at 14:28:23, Fritzlein wrote:
Why is 3w Ee5e Ef5e Eg5w hg6s much better than ...Eg5s hg6s or Eg5e hg6s (my personal favourite)?... Is it the central phant thing?... Is this why I'm not a 1700RU player yet? ::) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by The_Jeh on Apr 20th, 2007, 10:32pm Quote:
Eg5w hg6s puts Gold in a position to push the horse to the f3 trap from behind (hg5s Ef5e), making saving it much harder for Silver because the horse itself will be blocked from retreating straight north, and rescuing pieces will be blocked from reaching the horse. Eg5e hg6s threatens to do the same thing, but the Gold elephant is taken far from the action. It needs to be nearer the center so it can have influence over all traps, namely f6, and not be in danger of losing maneuverability near the side of the board. Using Eg5s hg6s takes away some of his anterior offensive pressure, and it is less ergonomical for the Gold elephant to keep ahold of the horse. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 21st, 2007, 9:00am on 04/20/07 at 21:52:50, NIC1138 wrote:
3w Ee5e Ef5e Eg5s hg6s seems rather passive. We can unfreeze and retreat our horse and then what does Gold have? 3w Ee5e Ef5e Eg5e hg6s, your favorite, is definitely a move to worry about. Yes, we can easily unfreeze and retreat our horse (more easily than after 3w Ee5e Ef5e Eg5w hg6s, because our elephant can approach from the side), but then the Gold elephant just pulls our h7 rabbit, for a lead in the rabbit-pulling race. I'm not sure what to do then. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by jdb on Apr 21st, 2007, 9:39am For the sake of discussion, lets assume Gold is hoping to play this move. (He might not, but I can only think about so much at once...) 3w Ee5n Ee6w Hb2n Db1n So if silver plays E forward three on his second move: 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s 3w Ee5n Ee6w Hb2n Db1n 3b ed4n hb7s xxxx xxxx I'm not aware of a term for this manouver, so I'll call it "capping the elephant" Quote:
2b ed7s ed6s hg7s dd8s 3w Ee5n Ee6w Hb2n Db1n This gets us to the same sort of position, using fewer steps. Another possibility is 2b ed7s ed6s hg7s hb7s This allows silver's camel a little more breathing room. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 21st, 2007, 4:51pm I know you are still not confident on my powers to dream up awkward and naïve moves ;D, so I came up with another lone-elephant candidate... We can avoid the blood bath of 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4s by simply playing 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4e. In this position, the phant threatens the lonesome cat at his eastern trap if he gets down for the E-H attack. But it doesn't mean that we would do this. Instead, in case he comes down (or better, north) with 3w Hg3n Hg4n Hg5n Ee5n, we can simply answer with 3b ee4n ee5e ... . Perhaps 3b ee4n ee5e hb7s dd8s. Now our trap becomes safe, his horse is in a bad position (can't just run back south), and the gold elephant is even perhaps half-capped!... It's a very good lure, IMHO!... How do you like it? It's a mix of Fritz's and jdb's defensive elephant coming back, and my own joyous experience in kidnapping Jean's horse in that game I told you all... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by jdb on Apr 21st, 2007, 6:19pm Quote:
3b ee4n ee5e ef5n dd8s Your suggestion for 2b is worth considering. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 21st, 2007, 8:07pm on 04/21/07 at 18:19:41, jdb wrote:
I've been analyzing this with Fritzlein, he noticed the imminent camel flipping. 4w Ee6w me7s me6s Ed6e ...I suggested 4b Hg6s ef6e eg6w ef6s , but this ends up with our camel in a fork. :( A much better response would be something like 4b ef6s Hg6w hg7s me5w Holding the horse hostage in the trap. Altough it's not a very good prision, at least gives some time to let out camel escape!! :D Our horse must be put there to stop his from pulling a rabbit and scape. The f7 rabbit is prone to a pulling tough... That horse still would do quite a damage... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 21st, 2007, 8:36pm Now, if we are to stop the EH attack before it happens, another option is 2b ed7s ed6e ee6e ef6s |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by jdb on Apr 21st, 2007, 10:59pm Quote:
5b ef6s me5s me4e mf4e I think this works, but there are alot of variations here so I probably missed something! After analyzing some more, I really like NIC's move for 2b. It sets a nasty opening trap for gold. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 22nd, 2007, 7:19am on 04/21/07 at 22:59:33, jdb wrote:
(I think you mean 4b) 1w Ee2 Md2 Hb2 Hg2 De1 Db1 Cf2 Cc2 Ra2 Rh2 Ra1 Rc1 Rd1 Rf1 Rg1 Rh1 1b ed7 me7 hg7 hb7 dd8 df7 ce8 cc7 ra8 rb8 rc8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 rh7 2w Ee2n Ee3n Ee4n Hg2n 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4e 3w Hg3n Hg4n Hg5n Ee5n 3b ee4n ee5e ef5n dd8s 4w Ee6w me7s me6s Ed6e 4b ef6s me5s me4e mf4e 5w Ee6s Ee5s Ee4e Hg6e 5b ef5e eg5e eh5s mg4n 6w Ef4n mg5s Ef5e Hh6w 6b mg4w mf4w me4n me5n 7w Eg5w Ef5n me6s Ef6w Quote:
What's the trap? What have we got out of this? It seems to me we still have an exposed camel, and he has an exposed horse. I think it's interesting, but I need more convincing. An entire camel hostage may hang on this move if we're not careful. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 22nd, 2007, 7:36am on 04/22/07 at 07:19:19, 99of9 wrote:
Oh, maybe then we should play: 5b ef5e mg4e mh4n eg5n so if he wants a camel hostage, we get a horse for it, and if he defends the horse, we'll probably get the horse hostage with our camel!! So instead, he could play: 1w Ee2 Md2 Hb2 Hg2 De1 Db1 Cf2 Cc2 Ra2 Rh2 Ra1 Rc1 Rd1 Rf1 Rg1 Rh1 1b ed7 me7 hg7 hb7 dd8 df7 ce8 cc7 ra8 rb8 rc8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 rh7 2w Ee2n Ee3n Ee4n Hg2n 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4e 3w Hg3n Hg4n Hg5n Ee5n 3b ee4n ee5e ef5n dd8s 4w Ee6w me7s me6s Ed6e 4b ef6s me5s me4e mf4e 5w Ee6s Ee5s Ee4e Hg6s Then what do we do? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 22nd, 2007, 7:43am on 04/21/07 at 22:59:33, jdb wrote:
And if he doesn't take the bait? He could now play the move I suggested earlier: 1w Ee2 Md2 Hb2 Hg2 De1 Db1 Cf2 Cc2 Ra2 Rh2 Ra1 Rc1 Rd1 Rf1 Rg1 Rh1 1b ed7 me7 hg7 hb7 dd8 df7 ce8 cc7 ra8 rb8 rc8 rf8 rg8 rh8 ra7 rh7 2w Ee2n Ee3n Ee4n Hg2n 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4e 3w Ee5w Ed5n Ed6n Hb2n and now it would be even more effective because our elephant is further away, so Fritz's defence no longer works as well. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by jdb on Apr 22nd, 2007, 8:26am If the trap of not advancing the horse to g7 works (and that is still a big if) there is nothing special about placing the elephant on e4 on move 2b. Anything that keeps the elephant with three steps of f6 should be ok. Or four steps if the dog is advanced to d7 on 2b. Unfortunately I dont see a solution to your 5w move moving the horse on h6 south >:( |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 22nd, 2007, 10:42am I was never a big fan of 4b ef6s me5s me4e mf4e myself... It does "protect" the rh7, because the camel seems so fragile. There are alternatives, but they let his horse free to do some damage The first is the one I said, with Hg6w hg7n. This one lets the horse free to do some wild mustang action behind the trap. Moving the camel to c4 buys ome time, but I didn't see any win. c5 too... But a curious altenative is 4b ef6s me5w md5w mc5n. His phant can't push the camel, and would have to pull it. And there is not even time to do it!... He would probably go for a horse pull-and-run, question is if it would setill be worthy trying to get his horse. Anyway we shouldn't have played this opening anyway! >:( :P :-[ :'( I believe this elections my vote will be "conservative"!... :( |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by RonWeasley on Apr 22nd, 2007, 1:29pm Are we ready to vote on the candidates? I think there are four. ed7s hg7s df7e me7e, e to d4 and h to g6, e to d3, and e to e4. I'll use standard notation in the election. Any others? Any final statements about relative merits? I prefer e to d4 and h to g6, but I want to look closer at e to e4. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 22nd, 2007, 3:03pm on 04/22/07 at 13:29:52, RonWeasley wrote:
What about 99of9's move? on 04/20/07 at 07:21:27, 99of9 wrote:
If that's the first preference of at least one player, it should be on the ballot, right? Also there was another suggestion on 04/21/07 at 09:39:34, jdb wrote:
Maybe that isn't JDB's first choice, and it isn't fair for JDB to get to put two moves on the ballot, but I got the impression from him in chat this morning that he was leaning away from NIC's suggestion of e->e4 and towards advancing both horses. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 22nd, 2007, 4:42pm I think we should include in the ballots every move that is ever contemplated, irrespective of how many the author has put in. Even if it's nobody's first preference, it's possible to be the compromise winner in this voting system. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 22nd, 2007, 5:41pm Oh, on closer look I see JDB has only made one suggestion, so it should definitely be included. If someone suggests only one move, and they don't explicitly withdraw that suggestion, then it should be included on the ballot automatically. I'm not sure I agree that every move that gets mentioned in the discussion should be on the ballot. For this move, I wouldn't mind, since I count only six explicit suggestions, but I could see it getting out of hand on some other move. One concern is that I would like to be able to suggest a bunch of plausible moves without checking them first, and later settle on my favorite without all the garbage necessarily showing up on the ballot. On the other hand, maybe I'm just over-estimating the probable number of candidates. It's weird to think that in positions with thousands of possible moves, we would only seriously consider five or six possibilities, but maybe that will be the case. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by arimaa_master on Apr 23rd, 2007, 6:40am on 04/20/07 at 14:06:26, Fritzlein wrote:
Hey Karl, I was first who suggested this 4b see: on 04/20/07 at 03:09:06, arimaa_master wrote:
I know I know - I am like a child but your "what about" seemed to be like you first invented this move - in fact I am happy that you and me found the same move :) However you gave new insight with explanations - so thanks :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 23rd, 2007, 6:55am This is why we need some kind of wiki: to keep track of all the variations that someone has already thought up! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 23rd, 2007, 7:14am on 04/23/07 at 06:40:21, arimaa_master wrote:
I beg your pardon; you did think of it first. I apologize that I didn't see your suggestion, and that I didn't respond to your counter-move for Gold. After 2w Ee2n Ee3n Ee4n Hg2n 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s 3w Hg3n Hg4n Hg5e Hh5n 3b rh7w ed4s Md2e ed3s 4w Me2n De1n Rd1e Hb2n 4b ed2n Me3n ed3e hb7s 5w Me4e Ee5s Cc2e Db1n Silver might indeed gain the initiative with 5b me7s me6e hg6s mf6e Each side has an exposed horse, but Gold's horse is in worse shape. Again, my apologies for presenting your idea for 4b as if it were original with me. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by arimaa_master on Apr 23rd, 2007, 9:01am on 04/23/07 at 07:14:54, Fritzlein wrote:
Apologies accepted (and explanation too :)) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 23rd, 2007, 9:36am Have we found an answer to 3w Ee5e Ef5e Eg5w hg6s already?... In my "browsing" I think we can fall into a horse hostage, but it might be a good price... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by arimaa_master on Apr 24th, 2007, 6:34am on 04/23/07 at 09:36:23, NIC1138 wrote:
Yes, we found the answer (and Karl found and wrote the answer - at least if we are talking about it from 2b ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s perspective :)). See Karl's comment: on 04/20/07 at 14:28:23, Fritzlein wrote:
|
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 24th, 2007, 10:53am Right then. And I'm still waiting for comments on my maneuver moving the camel to c6 after that possible camel flip, should we play the phant to e4... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by IdahoEv on Apr 24th, 2007, 5:26pm Would it be too much to ask someone to write a summary of the suggested moves and the basic reasoning behind each one? I'm having a ludicrously busy week with work. Good problem to have as a freelancer, but it means there's no hope of me getting through this thread to make a truly informed decision about the moves. But I'm interested and want to contribute as much as I can. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 24th, 2007, 8:36pm on 04/20/07 at 14:28:23, Fritzlein wrote:
I've probably delayed too long to have any real effect here, but in answer to chessandgo dragging our horse, my move would permit: 3b ed5s ed4s ed3e Md2n which starts to give us the initiative, with an attack on camel/rabbit, makes passing the horse to the camel difficult, and moves the action over to his side of the board. Of course we can still play something like this in Fritz's plan... but his is still open to that attack on our second-back line that I was worried about earlier. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 24th, 2007, 9:20pm on 04/24/07 at 17:26:42, IdahoEv wrote:
I'll have a go, but I can't promise to do justice to any of the proposals... ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s Defends g6 with the horse against an EH attack. Then advances our elephant as far as possible (3 steps). This means that if he drags our horse out, we can get our elephant across to bring our horse to safety against all dragging (the only option which fully achieves this). ed7s ed6s hg7s dd8s Defends g6 with the horse against an EH attack. Defends d7 and e7 against his E coming into the 7th rank and causing havoc with our camel or rabbits. Then advances our elephant as far as possible (2 steps - see below for why 2 might actually be optimal). ed7s ed6s hg7s hb7s Defends g6 with the horse against an EH attack. Specifically designed to frustrate chessandgo's common 2nd move in this kind of position: 3w Ee5n Ee6w Hb2n Db1n, where he starts to threaten stuff near our c trap. Our move deliberately only advances our elephant 2 steps, so that it is in a good defensive position. One final step is then free to push our other horse into the useful b6 outpost. Our camel finishes less cluttered than the previous suggestion. ed7s hg7s df7e me7e Defends g6 with the horse against an EH attack. Support is sent across so that the horse can not be dragged as easily, and if it is, it will probably be dragged up the h-file, which means the elephant is further decentralized. Finally, our elephant is sent forward as far as possible (1 step). This move is less common, so it may take us out of known territory earlier (e.g. unwittingly prevents Jean's elephant moving to d6 since our elephant is there). A fairly defensive move. ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4e Unlike the previous suggestions, this proposal is designed to invite an EH attack! The sting in its tail is the ability of our elephant to safely get back onto the f6 trap in the event of EH, which allows us to threaten a horse frame. Some analysis shows that our camel may be endangered in the process. Our elephant also ends up a little decentralized if chessandgo attacks the c6 trap instead. ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4s CHARGE!!! Although this permits an EH takeover on our f6 trap, that would initiate a bloody series of trades. We start by killing a cat, he kills dog, we kill horse, he kills camel... Seanick thinks chessandgo will be averse to such a bloody trade. If chessandgo plays something defensive, we would have our elephant in a very good position. Losing md(r?) for HC if he does attack makes it a very risky proposition for us. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 24th, 2007, 11:44pm I advocated for the two last moves... Both lead to complicated "chains of events"!... The first one didn't seem so great tough, we couldn't find a nice way to save the camel. I still haven't heard comments on the move taking it to c6 (safely) For the last one, the series of bloody slaughterings ends up wasting our camel, but our phant can grab his camel in a somewhat good situation... But perhaps it's not that great really. I tought the 2000+ players would pick up these situations and find out great ways out, but it seems that the reason they are 2000+ is that they never actually reach those situations! ;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by IdahoEv on Apr 25th, 2007, 12:30am much appreciated Toby, that's exactly what I was looking for! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 25th, 2007, 8:08am Are we going to vote for a taunt for Ron to enter in the chatbox? Here is my suggested ballot: (game related) a_ HAHA!! Your puny strategies make me LAUGH! b_ I hope you are already thinking about after move 8w, when we will force you to suicide your elephant... (classical) c_ You say your rabbits will come down so numerous that they will block the sun? Well, better then. We will fight at shade! (patriotic) d_ Les Français sont grenouille. Chardonnay a le goût de la pisse. Sartre et Descartes étaient laids. De Gaulle était un PD. (family) e_ Tell your mother you are not coming home. f_ We have two things in common: your woman, and knowing your next move. They say the last two worked for Materazzi against Zidane in that last world cup!... ;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 25th, 2007, 8:42am on 04/24/07 at 10:53:44, NIC1138 wrote:
You can see the answer in move 4w of game 50444, chessandgo vs. woh. If we just move our camel away, leaving his horse unfrozen, then his horse can pull our flank rabbit while retreating. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by RonWeasley on Apr 25th, 2007, 11:56am I've already told him that when he was born the doctor slapped his mother. He has not replied to this. I'm looking for similarly over-the-top taunts that can't reasonably be taken personally and we can all enjoy. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by NIC1138 on Apr 25th, 2007, 12:33pm We can send one he is already expecting! "Is it true that you are so ugly that your wife mistook you for a camel in your honeymoon in Tunisia??" ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 25th, 2007, 9:38pm on 04/24/07 at 21:20:13, 99of9 wrote:
Well, well, 99of9's suggestion is the move chessandgo chose for himself against PMertens in game 50486. Maybe this is an indication that if we play our elephant forward three, chessandgo will indeed put his elephant on d7, given that he took pains to keep PMertens' elephant out of d7. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by 99of9 on Apr 26th, 2007, 2:00am on 04/25/07 at 21:38:01, Fritzlein wrote:
Maybe it's a case of asymmetric evaluation, he hates opponent d7 elephants more than he likes friendly d7 elephants, because he didn't do that to me when I played your move in our postal. Or maybe he slightly randomizes his play like the chess players in order to not be too predictable. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by JacquesB on Apr 26th, 2007, 1:03pm chessandgo vs. TheMob has entered (8 hours ago) in reserve time. Shouldn't we vote? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 26th, 2007, 1:13pm on 04/26/07 at 13:03:26, JacquesB wrote:
We started voting the day before yesterday. Didn't you get an e-mail? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by RonWeasley on Apr 27th, 2007, 7:31am 11 out of 15 voted. The e to d4, h to g6 move was an overwhelming favorite. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by Fritzlein on Apr 27th, 2007, 8:09am For the record, none of the secondary preferences were close either. It was a clear ranking top to bottom. . . . . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. ed7s ed6s ed5s hg7s - 8 9 11 8 11 2. ed7s ed6s hg7s hb7s 2 - 7 10 8 11 3. ed7s ed6s hg7s dd8s 1 3 - 7 7 10 4. ed7s hg7s df7e me7e 0 1 3 - 5 9 5. ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4e 2 2 1 2 - 6 6. ed7s ed6s ed5s ed4s 0 0 0 0 0 - |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: Move 2 Post by JacquesB on Apr 27th, 2007, 2:55pm Sorry. I missed that election. My spam filter probably blocked that. I will teach it to let it pass. |
||||||||
|
Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |