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

        Arimaa >> Events >> Ongoing Opening Event?
        
(Message started by: crazyharry on Apr 13th, 2013, 5:19pm)
Title: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 13th, 2013, 5:19pm
gangsterveggies and I were talking about about working on openings together after the postal mixer and it occurred to me that we'll get better results if more players are involved. Drawing inspiration from clyring's Endless Endgame Event, I came up with an idea for an ongoing workshop of sorts to help players develop their openings.

I think it might be best to have participants do something like a 5-game series with each other to give each player a chance to test an opening against a 99of9 set, an EHH set and leave the final match open to the players.

I'd like to keep it informal, so the scheduling of games would be left up to the players and the pairings would be determined by who is available. If this thing ends up happening, I'll volunteer to make the pairings or provide a way for players to select their own opponents.

I think it would also be good to designate a place where participants can post links to their games for the rest of the group to critique.

Is anybody interested or have any suggestions to make it better?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by gangsterveggies on Apr 18th, 2013, 6:26pm
I think it is a very neat idea that can help beginner players to train the base of their game.

I think the opening is not the most important part of the game, but if one does not now how to do it correctly it influences pretty badly the rest of the game strategy.

Personally I think tihs would be really great to improve this part of the game and I would be nice if more advanced players would help.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by omar on Apr 23rd, 2013, 9:17am
I like the idea. It might be interesting to try "first to capture wins". That would help to keep the game focused on the opening.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 23rd, 2013, 11:46am

on 04/23/13 at 09:17:21, omar wrote:
I like the idea. It might be interesting to try "first to capture wins". That would help to keep the game focused on the opening.

That's a great idea! I wanted something that would help focus the games on the opening, but I couldn't come up with anything...

My only concern would be that it might produce an incentive for players to play just to capture, rather than trying to set themselves up with a good position down the road. Then again, the two objectives might wind up being one and the same.

I keep thinking that perhaps positional advantage should be evaluated as well, but in most cases that should coincide with first capture. I can't think of many situations where it would be beneficial to trade material for position in the opening.

So maybe first capture wins, and in the event of a trade, whoever has the highest score wins, with discussion of the positions in the comments?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by browni3141 on Apr 23rd, 2013, 6:20pm

on 04/23/13 at 09:17:21, omar wrote:
I like the idea. It might be interesting to try "first to capture wins". That would help to keep the game focused on the opening.

This doesn't take into consideration trades or sacrifices. It would drastically affect game-play for a player like me. I think that defeats the purpose of practicing opening strategy if you are forced to alter how you play.

In many games I have been the first to lose material, but actually had a much better position. The strategy of being first to win material does not neatly coincide with winning the game.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 23rd, 2013, 7:45pm

on 04/23/13 at 18:20:14, browni3141 wrote:
This doesn't take into consideration trades or sacrifices. It would drastically affect game-play for a player like me. I think that defeats the purpose of practicing opening strategy if you are forced to alter how you play.

In many games I have been the first to lose material, but actually had a much better position. The strategy of being first to win material does not neatly coincide with winning the game.

Well, that is a valid point, but we could implement a continuation rule, allowing for maybe two moves after first capture to take trades into account. The only other alternative I can think of is to have people try to reach a consensus regarding when the opening ended and who was winning at that point, but I see that being potentially messy.

Another option is to not keep score and just use the games as an opportunity to discuss and improve opening strategy. I kind of like this option because I would like to see players take some risks and experiment with new setups and strategies. Sometimes I even think the games should be unrated so there is even less at stake.

If we were to keep score based on first capture/trade and allow for truncated games, I might want to see the number of games in each series increased to 8 so each player gets an opportunity to play both gold and silver in each position with the exception of EHH because that is rarely played as gold. I worry that this might require too much of a time commitment though.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 25th, 2013, 10:06am
What if we were to score it half a point for first capture/best of first trade(s) and half a point for winning the game?

It could reduce the incentive to play for first capture but still provide some measurement for the opening. I know browni, it still doesn't really work for your style of play, but it might work.

I still think we need to answer the question: Do we need to keep score?

I would really rather see this be a way for players to improve their fundamental skill set and get some good experience against human opponents than a competition, but a bit of competition might make things a bit more interesting.

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by Hippo on Apr 25th, 2013, 3:25pm
May be ending say 8 turns after first capture by score obtained by given fixed material evaluator?

But it could end in the middle of a trade ...

I really don't know how to define the exact end of openning phase.

The eee was much easier to introduce.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by Nombril on Apr 25th, 2013, 4:08pm
If the point is to practice openings, I would suggest unrated games that you quit playing once the "victory" condition is met.  (Losing player could resign.)

I agree with browni that "first" capture might not indicate who has won the opening.  But we often do watch games and say things in the chat room like "gold has won the opening by achieving x".  So it should be reasonable to provide good practice for at least some good habits in opening play.  What if we add one or two additional victory conditions that normally signify the end of the opening?

Trades:
Since the focus is the opening, I would suggest a very short continuation (2 turns sounds reasonable), anything longer leads to "I think I can get an advantage from this sacrifice" rather than "I have a concrete tactical line to get immediate advantage from this sacrifice".

Position:

At least two easy to recognize features jump out at me:

Trap Control:
Victory condition of:
* Occupying 3 of the 4 squares by one of the opponents traps.

Hostage/Frame:
They are "good" or "bad",  but maybe just achieving one can be considered an opening victory.  Breaking it would be a mid-game struggle, and not the goal of this event.

Turn Limit:
If you really want to get 5 or 8 games in, I'd suggest a turn limit (15 or 20 moves ??), probably draws are OK in this case?


Just some reactions to what is being suggested, please take only what is interesting!
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 26th, 2013, 12:32am
Thanks for the input guys!

I like the idea of unrating games and allowing players to resign after the opening for scheduling purposes. I would like to see games played out to the conclusion though, just because sometimes blunders lead to advantages through strange threads of causality.

I think two moves is a good threshold for trades. Within two moves of capture, one's opponent should be able to to recover and defend, and anything beyond that becomes middle game tactical maneuvers more or less unrelated to the original capture. If it's a true trade, two moves should be more than enough to complete it.

I don't think it's necessary for all of the games in a series to be played in the same day. I'd like to leave the actual scheduling up to the players, and allow them to play out the series over as long or as short a period as works for them. Unless there seems to be overwhelming support for finishing each series quickly, I would like to avoid imposing a turn limit, although it might be wise to quit scoring openings after 20 turns, because if it is that deadlocked, we can probably consider it a draw.

As far as scoring, what about some sort of point system for captures and position? Each piece could be assigned a point value that would be added to a players score upon capture, maybe half of it's value if at the end of the opening it is hostaged? Three quarters of it's value if it's framed? Points for occupying two or three of the squares adjacent to an opponent's trap? I'm not sure it would be fair to consider any of these an absolute victory condition, but maybe we just apply the two-move continuation to all of them. A frame or a hostage would typically indicate the end of the opening and maybe we could say that if it holds up for two moves, the opening is over and score it according to a set rubric. Maybe the same could be done if two of the squares adjacent to an opponent's trap are held for three consecutive turns.

Sounds like it could get complicated.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on Apr 26th, 2013, 1:17am
It would be amusing to have one or both players play random setups.  (Use a computer to generate randomized starting positions.)  Also it would be amusing to give one player a turn or two for a head start, and alternate who has the head start each game so the tournament stays fair.

It sounds like there are two possibilities here: (a) create an artificial goal, like winning material or taking control of an enemy trap, even though those goals aren't how some people actually play, or (b) play a real game and have humans decide who "won" the opening.

I'd like to suggest a middle ground.  There are several viable "victory conditions."
- take control of an enemy trap
- capture an enemy piece
- frame an enemy piece (for at least N turns?)
- hostage an enemy piece
- pull an enemy rabbit (N squares forward?)
- (anything else?)

Before the game starts, either both players agree on a victory condition or one is chosen randomly for each player.   For example, my victory goal might be pulling my opponents' rabbit, and his victory goal might be framing a piece of mine.  As long as the victory conditions are specified up front it's fair.  Maybe silver should choose his victory condition after he sees the gold setup, and gold choose her victory condition after she sees the silver setup.  Just some ideas...
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 26th, 2013, 9:31pm
Thanks for the input matt!

I like the idea of having each player have an win condition. It makes things nice and simple, and it would push people out of their comfort zones. I do have a couple of concerns though. First, I think for the games to be most useful, players should not know their opponent's objectives, otherwise one could tailor their defense to their opponent's objectives alone. Second, the win criteria are not equal in difficulty. I would say that rabbit pulling is the easiest, followed by hostaging, framing, and capturing.

I sat down and put together a scoring rubric today, just to get things going. Here it is:

Scoring Rubric for Ongoing Opening Event

The opening will be considered over after 20s, or when one of the following conditions has been met:

1.      Two and one half full turns have elapsed after the first capture.
2.      A frame has been held for two consecutive turns.
3.      A piece has been hostaged for two consecutive turns.
4.      Two key squares of an opposing trap have been occupied for two consecutive turns.

After the conclusion of the opening, it will be scored according to material and position.

Each piece has a value as follows:

Elephant – 10 points
Camel – 7 points
Horse – 5 points
Dog – 3 points
Cat – 2 points
Rabbit – 1 point

Each player receives the full point value for each piece captured.

Each player receives ¾ of the point value for each piece framed.

Each player receives ½ of the point value for each piece hostaged.

Each player receives 3 points if they are occupying two of the key squares of an opponent's trap.


I was thinking that after each game the players could go back and score it themselves, post the score as they interpreted it in the comments section and explain the goals of their opening, so the rest of the group has information to critique properly.

Here are a couple of example openings scored according to my rubric:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/524808_10100122483394494_910070872_n.jpg
I scored this opening 5-0 for Gold. The opening was ended because two and a half turns had elapsed since the capture of the silver cat. Gold therefore receives two points for the cat and three points for occupying the f5 and e6 squares. Silver does not receive points for hostaging gold's horse because it is not in danger of immediate capture should gold evacuate the f6 area and therefore isn't a true hostage.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/528240_10100122483554174_1560672819_n.jpg
I scored this opening 2.5-0 for Gold. The opening was ended because the gold horse had been hostaged for two turns. No pieces were captured, and although the c3 trap is contested, silver has occupied a second key square or taken other measures to ensure that the gold elephant remains in place. Gold receives 2.5 points for the horse hostage and silver receives 0 points because at this point his budding blockade has as much potential to work against his long-term goals as for them. Although silver eventually won this game, it was a consequence of gold's inability to make a plan to free his elephant in the midgame, rather than any skillful opening play on the part of silver.


Does anybody have any thoughts on this scoring system?

EDIT: Changed capture endgame criteria from two full turns to two and one half full turns so the last move goes to the side that did not capture first.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on Apr 29th, 2013, 1:25am

on 04/26/13 at 21:31:48, crazyharry wrote:
Thanks for the input matt!
You're welcome!  I'm not really committed to anything I said; I just meant it as "food for thought."  You're right that some goals are easier than others, so the scoring rubric would have to address that.  I think either (a) the players should have symmetrical goals, or (b) whatever goals the players have for one game, they should then play a second game with goals and colors reversed.


on 04/26/13 at 21:31:48, crazyharry wrote:
I think for the games to be most useful, players should not know their opponent's objectives...
I think the whole idea of practicing openings is artificial to begin with, so it doesn't bother me to also have an arbitrary scoring system where the players have known objectives.  It makes the game much more focused and tactical if the players have specific objectives, whereas if you just halt the game at 20s or first capture it makes it more strategic.  It would be an interesting exercise to take people out of their comfort zone by giving them objectives that aren't within their normal playing style.

One specific artificial game I'd like to see is a variation on "capture the flag."  The first player to have uncontested control of three traps wins.  "Uncontested" means no enemy pieces in the trap or any of the squares one step away from the trap. Of course the normal Arimaa rules still apply, so if a different win condition happens first that player is the winner.  And captures are still strategically important, but this variant doesn't need an artificial point value for captured pieces.  Another alternative would be that the winner is the first player to have uncontested control of one enemy trap.  (If none of the other Arimaa win conditions have happened first.)


on 04/26/13 at 21:31:48, crazyharry wrote:
otherwise one could tailor their defense to their opponent's objectives alone.
I don't think there's any way around that.  We're talking about an artificial subset of Arimaa, not "real" Arimaa.  Any attempt to cut the game short and keep score is going to favor some playing strategies over others.  My two cents...


on 04/26/13 at 21:31:48, crazyharry wrote:
I had a couple of example opening pictures to illustrate how scoring would work, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how to upload them to the forum, so they'll have to wait.
You have to first upload the image somewhere online (not here in the forum), and then link to it from the forum.  I use imgur.com. (1) upload image on that website. (2) copy-paste the link from that website into your forum post.

If you click on the elephant below you'll be taken to the page on imgur.com.  You want either "BBCode" or "Linked BBCode" depending on whether you want a link or not.
http://i.imgur.com/qJswJej.gif (http://imgur.com/qJswJej)
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on Apr 29th, 2013, 2:23am

on 04/26/13 at 21:31:48, crazyharry wrote:
Does anybody have any thoughts on this scoring system?
Thanks for doing all that work!

I think you should make a page for this event on the local wiki and copy your scoring criteria there.  That will make it easier for others to critique and edit it.  Also the wiki allows you to organize all the practice games in one place, so you can easily discuss the scoring criteria as it relates to each game and keep all the information centralized.  (I think that's better than using the comments section of the games.)

When the event is running "for real" we might want it to be a real tournament, but initially I think it's good to play some (unrated) games with other people and try out your rubric and see how it feels.

My one "important" objection is I think the scoring should have no room for judgement whatsoever.  In the beginning you'll probably want to do exactly what you said: post a game, discuss the score and the scoring system, but when the tournament is running "for real" the scoring should be either automated or able to be automated.   (If I have time I'll work on the automation part but no promises...)
Matthew
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 29th, 2013, 1:43pm
Thanks for the help Matt!

I uploaded some images and added them to my post above. I'll look into the wiki, I think that's a good idea as well.

As far as the event format goes, I think we have two different visions.

I would like it to take on more of an ongoing workshop format to give players an opportunity to air new opening strategies intended for use in full games of Arimaa and receive feedback and advice regarding those strategies. To reach those goals, I believe we should either use a set scoring rubric or refrain from scoring altogether and just let the players rely on community feedback to shape their strategic amendments. I would also like the event to be able to continue for as long as people are interested in participating, with players joining or dropping out as their schedules and interest allow, and I'm not sure that's compatible with a tournament format.

I do like your idea of giving players different objectives, and you are right about the artificial nature of opening competitions, and win criteria will always be arbitrary unless the opening became the game itself. I think we could form a compromise between the two visions by organizing tournaments periodically with different win criteria as a way to push people out of their comfort zones and foster creativity while using the longer-running event as a venue for players to freely devise and test general opening strategies. I'm not going to commit myself to organizing any of these tournaments at the moment, but if somebody wanted to spearhead such an event, I would be happy to help.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 29th, 2013, 2:27pm

on 04/29/13 at 02:23:41, mattj256 wrote:
My one "important" objection is I think the scoring should have no room for judgement whatsoever.  In the beginning you'll probably want to do exactly what you said: post a game, discuss the score and the scoring system, but when the tournament is running "for real" the scoring should be either automated or able to be automated.   (If I have time I'll work on the automation part but no promises...)
Matthew

I agree that ideally, human judgement would play no part in the scoring process, but in the interest of keeping things simple, I think it would be ok if both participants scored their matches. If the scores match, then that could be accepted as the official score; if there is a discrepancy, a moderator could look into it to resolve the discrepancy(but I'm not sure this would be necessary unless something were on the line, like a tournament or a WHROpening, if that sort of thing finds it's way into the event). Automation of the scoring process would be ideal, but that is far beyond my meager coding ability, and I don't think I have time to commit to both coordinating the event and teaching myself the code to write such a program.

I'm working on a draft for my vision of the event format now. I'll post it here when it's finished so people can read it and give feedback, then I'll look into getting things on the wiki.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 29th, 2013, 3:03pm
Ok, I have a rough draft drawn up for the event format and rules. Anybody have any thoughts, concerns, or suggestions?

OOE Format

1.      Game Scheduling
 a)      Players will play a five-game series. The schedule for these games will be decided privately between the two players, and the series can be completed at their leisure.
2.      Game Format
 a)      Game 1: Player 1 chooses his own setup position and color. Player 2 plays a 99of9 position of his choice.
 b)      Game 2: Player 2 chooses his own setup position and color. Player 1 plays a 99of9 position of his choice.
 c)      Game 3: Player 1 chooses his own setup position and plays as gold. Player 2 plays an EHH position as silver.
 d)      Game 4: Player 2 chooses his own setup position and plays as gold. Player 1 plays an EHH position as silver.
 e)      Game 5: Both players choose their own setup positions with player 1 as gold and player 2 as silver.
3.      Scoring
 a)      Openings will be scored according to the guidelines set forth in the scoring rubric.
 b)      At the completion of each game, both players will score the opening and post the score as they see it in the comments section of the game (or other location, if it is decided that someplace else would be better).
 c)      If a discrepancy between the scores generated by the participants results in a disputed game (e.g. both participants claim victory), a moderator will be appointed to settle the dispute.
4.      Pairing
 a)      The event coordinator will create pairings from available participants (those not still completing a series) every Saturday and post the pairings on the designated OOE thread in the forum.
 b)      Players will be matched to the player closest to them in WHR, or when WHR is unavailable, gameroom rating, except when:
   i)      The two players have already played a series against each other.
   ii)      The difference between the WHR/gameroom ratings of the two players is greater than 300, in which case, unless both players consent to the mismatch, rematches will be considered.
 c)      Whenever possible, pairings will seek an equilibrium between the number of times a player is player 1 and player 2.
5.      Contingencies
 a)      If a player wishes to withdraw from the event at any time, he/she will notify the event coordinator and be removed from the list of available participants with no questions asked.
 b)      Pairings may be terminated and new pairings issued for the next round when:
   i)      The two players in a pairing are unable to find a common available time to play their games.
   ii)      A player does not respond to his/her opponent’s attempts to schedule games, in which case the nonresponsive player will be removed from the active players list and the remaining player will be issued a new pairing for the next round.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by Hippo on Apr 29th, 2013, 4:56pm

on 04/26/13 at 21:31:48, crazyharry wrote:
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/528240_10100122483554174_1560672819_n.jpg
I scored this opening 2.5-0 for Gold. The opening was ended because the gold horse had been hostaged for two turns. No pieces were captured, and although the c3 trap is contested, silver has occupied a second key square or taken other measures to ensure that the gold elephant remains in place. Gold receives 2.5 points for the horse hostage and silver receives 0 points because at this point his budding blockade has as much potential to work against his long-term goals as for them. Although silver eventually won this game, it was a consequence of gold's inability to make a plan to free his elephant in the midgame, rather than any skillful opening play on the part of silver.


I am sceptical with the event when you have to go to lost arimaa position to "win the openning". May be this position is not lost, but gold would have problems to rotate camel to obtain Mh hostage and E cannot leave till h would be dislodged. Therefore m would be strongest free piece at least for several turns.

If a hostage would be used as victory condition ... it must be held by just one stronger piece ... .

I would much more liked overloaded phant as victory condition. But what it exactly means ?:)
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 29th, 2013, 5:21pm
There have been several times in my Arimaa career when my opponent and I each explicitly thought we were winning out of the opening.  Sometimes it felt like we were not playing against each other, but rather pulling on the same team, since we were trying to create the same position.  Each of us expected to win from there on out.

This same phenomenon can be observed in timed-out games against bot_Bomb2005.  The human player may try to unrate the game he was winning, only to be told that he can't unrate because he was losing.  The judge of the ability to unrate, of course, is bot_Bomb2005!

I think if we could all look at an opening position and agree who was ahead, it would be a sad day for Arimaa, because it would mean that everyone would be playing the same strategies.  It would mean everyone would agree what markers to play for, and the only differentiation between players was technique in achieving those markers.  It would signal the end of winning Arimaa games simply by having better strategic judgment.

In the mean time, I simply can't see how to make an opening-only event work.  The game must be played out until the rules themselves decide the winner.  Note that historically, chess events that focused on openings didn't try to cut off the games after a certain number of moves; they merely mandated certain openings and let the players take the games from there to a natural conclusion.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 29th, 2013, 5:40pm

on 04/29/13 at 16:56:48, Hippo wrote:
I am sceptical with the event when you have to go to lost arimaa position to "win the openning". May be this position is not lost, but gold would have problems to rotate camel to obtain Mh hostage and E cannot leave till h would be dislodged. Therefore m would be strongest free piece at least for several turns.

If a hostage would be used as victory condition ... it must be held by just one stronger piece ... .

I would much more liked overloaded phant as victory condition. But what it exactly means ?:)


You're right, of course. Maybe that particular game was a poor example. m would be the strongest free piece for at least 2-3 turns, enough to potentially capture the H on the off side, but if silver dawdles, there is nothing to prevent gold from replacing his elephant with either his horse or his camel within 2 turns.

Either way, Fritzlein has nicely summed up the problems with trying to score openings. I think there could be an argument the loss of an apparent opening advantage is more the result of poor play in the mid and endgame than a flawed opening strategy, but I really don't have the experience necessary to make that argument when the body of evidence is so varied and diverse. I still believe that it would be completely acceptable to not keep score and just use this as an opportunity to test out concepts and get feedback from the community, but having things be a little competitive could be fun, even if the scoring algorithm is a bit flawed.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by browni3141 on Apr 29th, 2013, 5:56pm

on 04/29/13 at 17:40:18, crazyharry wrote:
You're right, of course. Maybe that particular game was a poor example. m would be the strongest free piece for at least 2-3 turns, enough to potentially capture the H on the off side, but if silver dawdles, there is nothing to prevent gold from replacing his elephant with either his horse or his camel within 2 turns.

The position you gave is unclear to me. Any piece gold gets to b3 could be pulled, which would force the gold elephant to stay near c3. It's not really as simple as this, but I'm just trying to say that the position is still unclear.

Also, I agree completely with Fritzlein. You will not find a set of rules that even two experienced players would agree upon.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 29th, 2013, 6:17pm

on 04/29/13 at 17:56:51, browni3141 wrote:
Also, I agree completely with Fritzlein. You will not find a set of rules that even two experienced players would agree upon.

Well, then maybe the rules should be scrapped. Would anybody have any problems with just not keeping score?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by browni3141 on Apr 29th, 2013, 7:33pm

on 04/29/13 at 18:17:56, crazyharry wrote:
Well, then maybe the rules should be scrapped. Would anybody have any problems with just not keeping score?

Not me :). Normally I like things to be competitive, but I don't think there's a good way to do it here AND keep the games short.

I personally think it would be best to play the games to the finish. I think this is not only important if you want to keep score, but also if you want people to learn as much as possible. How are you supposed to improve without some sort of feedback? If the games are cut short you get less feedback. You might get stuck thinking some structure is good when it is really not because you didn't have to struggle through a middlegame.

As an example I used to think that giving up an early dog frame on the camel side of an opponent's EHH/M setup was to my advantage. Only by continuing through the middlegame was I able to learn that it is a very difficult position to play. I'm not sure if it's just a difficult position or a truly bad one, but the middlegame experience has taught me a lot. Without that feedback from playing the middlegame I would still think that the frame is quite good for me, when in fact it is clearly unclear.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 29th, 2013, 8:33pm

on 04/29/13 at 19:33:49, browni3141 wrote:
Not me :). Normally I like things to be competitive, but I don't think there's a good way to do it here AND keep the games short.

I personally think it would be best to play the games to the finish. I think this is not only important if you want to keep score, but also if you want people to learn as much as possible. How are you supposed to improve without some sort of feedback? If the games are cut short you get less feedback. You might get stuck thinking some structure is good when it is really not because you didn't have to struggle through a middlegame.

As an example I used to think that giving up an early dog frame on the camel side of an opponent's EHH/M setup was to my advantage. Only by continuing through the middlegame was I able to learn that it is a very difficult position to play. I'm not sure if it's just a difficult position or a truly bad one, but the middlegame experience has taught me a lot. Without that feedback from playing the middlegame I would still think that the frame is quite good for me, when in fact it is clearly unclear.


Actually, I agree with you on all counts. I never intended to advocate players resigning at any point in their games. Mostly I've just been throwing out ideas to try to get some good feedback, and it seems like I've gotten some of that.

So, proposal:
The scoring rubric is thrown out.
The pairing protocol and 5-game series structure stays in place, and a 2-minute time control is recommended to give participants plenty of thinking time without stretching the games into marathons.
The event games are archived in a designated location so the community can easily discuss the strategies and tactics employed.

How does that sound?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on Apr 29th, 2013, 9:03pm
Crazyharry, I'm glad to see your images on the bulletin board!


on 04/29/13 at 13:43:07, crazyharry wrote:
As far as the event format goes, I think we have two different visions.
Probably but you seem very motivated to carry out your vision so I won't argue with you. :)  
(I only argue about stupid pointless things.)

Just to reiterate, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have artificial games with artificial scoring where the game is cut off at move 20 or some other arbitrary criteria.  But it would be a variant of Arimaa, not Arimaa.  Just like you could play the variant where each player gets two cats and four rabbits.  I seem to be the only one in favor of this so I won't waste time arguing about it, but I do think it would be fun.  (Like sparring practice for a boxer.)  I guess it would be good for teaching tactics and bad for teaching strategy. [Edit: I didn't read everything in the thread.  If this happens at all it will be for a different event, not the one being planned here.]

I like what Fritzlein mentioned about mandating a certain opening.   Brainstorming off of that, you could have two strong players play a game, with a delay before the rest of the world sees the moves and everyone encouraged to watch the game and join the chat room, just like is done for a tournament game.  In the chat room, instead of trying to guess the next move people could try to answer the question: "who is winning?"  Whenever you have two people who disagree about who's winning, those two people could start from the position on the board and play a fresh game with their chosen side.  It would be interesting to have the whole Arimaa community obsessively analyze a single game, with many games branching off from it, rather than having the same amount of analysis spread out over dozens of games that are completely unrelated.  

(I'm terrible about implementing stuff but I really like brainstorming...)

If you want, here's the info on setting up an account to edit the wiki:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/Create_Account (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/Create_Account)

I'm glad to see there's so much enthusiasm in this!
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on Apr 29th, 2013, 9:10pm

on 04/29/13 at 20:33:52, crazyharry wrote:
The pairing protocol and 5-game series structure stays in place
I have one minor objection: I think that each series should have an even number of games with both players required to play silver and gold an equal number of times.  What do other people think about that?  Other than that I think everything is great!  And thanks for doing all this work crazyharry!
Matthew
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 29th, 2013, 9:41pm

on 04/29/13 at 21:03:16, mattj256 wrote:
Just to reiterate, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have artificial games with artificial scoring where the game is cut off at move 20 or some other arbitrary criteria.  But it would be a variant of Arimaa, not Arimaa.  Just like you could play the variant where each player gets two cats and four rabbits.  I seem to be the only one in favor of this so I won't waste time arguing about it, but I do think it would be fun.  (Like sparring practice for a boxer.)  I guess it would be good for teaching tactics and bad for teaching strategy. [Edit: I didn't read everything in the thread.  If this happens at all it will be for a different event, not the one being planned here.]

I like what Fritzlein mentioned about mandating a certain opening.   Brainstorming off of that, you could have two strong players play a game, with a delay before the rest of the world sees the moves and everyone encouraged to watch the game and join the chat room, just like is done for a tournament game.  In the chat room, instead of trying to guess the next move people could try to answer the question: "who is winning?"  Whenever you have two people who disagree about who's winning, those two people could start from the position on the board and play a fresh game with their chosen side.  It would be interesting to have the whole Arimaa community obsessively analyze a single game, with many games branching off from it, rather than having the same amount of analysis spread out over dozens of games that are completely unrelated.  

(I'm terrible about implementing stuff but I really like brainstorming...)

If you want, here's the info on setting up an account to edit the wiki:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/Create_Account (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/Create_Account)

I'm glad to see there's so much enthusiasm in this!

Well, I actually do like the idea of starting with random setups, or different subsets of pieces, but I feel like that's been covered pretty well by the EEE.

I really don't mind your brainstorming, I think most of your ideas are pretty good, I just don't really want to implement them this time around. Most of them are pretty cool ideas, but they sound like, well, work.

Thanks for all of the support Matt!
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on Apr 29th, 2013, 9:53pm

on 04/29/13 at 21:10:56, mattj256 wrote:
I have one minor objection: I think that each series should have an even number of games with both players required to play silver and gold an equal number of times.  What do other people think about that?  Other than that I think everything is great!  And thanks for doing all this work crazyharry!
Matthew

Well, I was toying with the idea of an 8-game series earlier for just that purpose, but I worried that 8 games might be too difficult for people to schedule in a timely manner. I figured that over the course of multiple series, things would even out even though the individual series couldn't be even. Six could be a potential compromise.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on Apr 29th, 2013, 10:07pm

on 04/29/13 at 21:41:15, crazyharry wrote:
Well, I actually do like the idea of starting with random setups, or different subsets of pieces, but I feel like that's been covered pretty well by the EEE.
You're right; I didn't know about EEE at the time.


on 04/29/13 at 21:41:15, crazyharry wrote:
I really don't mind your brainstorming, I think most of your ideas are pretty good, I just don't really want to implement them this time around.
Glad to hear you don't think I'm being a pest. :)


on 04/29/13 at 21:41:15, crazyharry wrote:
Thanks for all of the support Matt!
You're welcome and thank you!  Like I said, I would never be able to organize an event like this.  (Speaking of work, you're giving me some good ideas of technology stuff I "could" be doing.)

The thing about five games is pretty minor but I figured it was worth raising.  Ok have fun and good night!
Matthew
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by Boo on Apr 30th, 2013, 4:16am
I didn't take time to read all this thread, just some thoughts on the rules:


Quote:
2.      Game Format
 a)      Game 1: Player 1 chooses his own setup position and color. Player 2 plays a 99of9 position of his choice.
 b)      Game 2: Player 2 chooses his own setup position and color. Player 1 plays a 99of9 position of his choice.
 c)      Game 3: Player 1 chooses his own setup position and plays as gold. Player 2 plays an EHH position as silver.
 d)      Game 4: Player 2 chooses his own setup position and plays as gold. Player 1 plays an EHH position as silver.
 e)      Game 5: Both players choose their own setup positions with player 1 as gold and player 2 as silver.


I think in terms of learning it would be better to select an opening position of high rated players when all the pieces are still on board, preferably with no hostages, frames established yet, in the interval of 7g-15s. And have all the players play the same position with both silver and gold. (5th time let the lower rated player choose the color) This way the players could learn the plans of both sides by comparing their game with the others. Also they could have the original game as an example and try to find the first improvement there.


Quote:
3.      Scoring
 a)      Openings will be scored according to the guidelines set forth in the scoring rubric.
 b)      At the completion of each game, both players will score the opening and post the score as they see it in the comments section of the game (or other location, if it is decided that someplace else would be better).  
 c)      If a discrepancy between the scores generated by the participants results in a disputed game (e.g. both participants claim victory), a moderator will be appointed to settle the dispute.


I would let the games to be played to their natural end. Learning the opening should not stop you from learning the endgame. :) "Learning" should be the keyword here.

I would let the players agree on the time control they want to play. If they cant find agreement - then choose the default one.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by odin73 on Apr 30th, 2013, 9:38am
What about an easier winning rule to start a contest with a less serious intention?
It could be:

1. The player capturing the first piece is winning until move 20. Else there is no winner for that game.

2. The player capturing the first non-rabbit piece is winning the game until move 20. Else there is no winner for that game.

In my opinion this could be a good excercise for beginners not to blunder pieces in the opening phase (This frequently happens). To avoid a completely passive game, the two rules could be changed to:

1b. The player capturing the first piece is winning until move 20. Else both players lose the game.

2b. The player capturing the first non-rabbit piece is winning the game until move 20. Else both players lose the game.

I think an opening event should not cover the problem to find a perfect opening strategy. It should rather deal with short time tactics.
Opinions?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by Hippo on May 1st, 2013, 1:59am
Yes, I like this idea.
We can start with my recent game around 13:).

The format crystalised in my hand ...
playng best 2 of 3 with time controls 1m;45s;30s.
Half of the last game has to be replayed both times. Of course with colors switched. 2:0 means no third game.

We could use harwestnow's script to easily replay the game. I expect all 3 games to be played unrated.

What is interesting ... the leading player has to finish the game as fast as possible ... to be able to deviate earlier. While losing player wants to dalay as long as possible to have advantage in the following game.

There is incentive to play interesting positions from both sides.

But may be, I am wrong ... when one player is leading he could make weak moves to make position playable from both sides and than waits with the winning move to finish the game at proper place for deviation ... so at the end it could make too many incentives to play the first and especially second game strange.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on May 1st, 2013, 9:47am

on 04/30/13 at 04:16:40, Boo wrote:
I think in terms of learning it would be better to select an opening position of high rated players when all the pieces are still on board, preferably with no hostages, frames established yet, in the interval of 7g-15s. And have all the players play the same position with both silver and gold. (5th time let the lower rated player choose the color)
I like this idea because it's reasonably simple to implement and doesn't involve any complicated scoring criteria.  I think the games should be rated.  If one player wins a majority of the first four games then the other player should get to choose color for the fifth game; if they're tied I agree with Boo that the lower-rated player should get to choose color.  Or it could be played as "best two out of three" or "best three out of five."
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 5th, 2013, 10:01am

on 05/01/13 at 09:47:48, mattj256 wrote:
I like this idea because it's reasonably simple to implement and doesn't involve any complicated scoring criteria.  I think the games should be rated.  If one player wins a majority of the first four games then the other player should get to choose color for the fifth game; if they're tied I agree with Boo that the lower-rated player should get to choose color.  Or it could be played as "best two out of three" or "best three out of five."


I think that format could be a little more beginner-friendly than what I had in mind, but I would rather work on moves 1-7 than 7-15. The hardest part of the game for me is coming up with a plan of attack at the opening, when the board is still completely open, no pieces have been captured, and neither player has an advantage. Once things start moving, it gets a little easier to make plans, but I really don't like just blindly advancing until a tipping point is reached. Ideally I would have what is essentially a playbook of opening sets and ploys so I can start my games with a plan that has at least a reasonable chance of success.

I also want to work with different setup positions. I'm curious to see if it's better to start with one's pieces in position to be deployed rapidly at the expense of possibly tipping one's hand to the opponent or to start with a non-descript set like 99of9 for slower deployment but a greater possibility of having the element of surprise.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on May 5th, 2013, 6:05pm

on 05/05/13 at 10:01:11, crazyharry wrote:
I also want to work with different setup positions. I'm curious to see if it's better to start with one's pieces in position to be deployed rapidly at the expense of possibly tipping one's hand to the opponent or to start with a non-descript set like 99of9 for slower deployment but a greater possibility of having the element of surprise.
 I feel like too much of a beginner to say much, except that the strategy/mindset would have to be different between Gold and Silver.  Personally I think the important distinction is "committed" versus "flexible."  And Fritzlein uses the terms "home" and "away" all the time.  Also there's the question of how willing you are to pull enemy rabbits or allow your own rabbits to be pulled.  I would sincerely hope that there's no one "objective" best setup!  Personally I'm experimenting with the 99of9 setup but the camel behind the elephant.  On the first move I move my elephant and camel two steps forward each.  I've never seen anyone else do it but it certainly fits my playing style!

If you want to concentrate on moves 1-7 and you want to not have artificial scoring, to me that means that you want a serious discussion after the game is over.  Other than the fact that nobody else does it, is there a reason you can't just post in the "game analysis" section of the Forum?  Do you need an actual tournament, or would it be enough to have an infrastructure where once a week a game of yours gets critiqued by a stronger player?  (Still not trying to be a pest...)

Matthew
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 6th, 2013, 12:38am

on 05/05/13 at 18:05:48, mattj256 wrote:
If you want to concentrate on moves 1-7 and you want to not have artificial scoring, to me that means that you want a serious discussion after the game is over.  Other than the fact that nobody else does it, is there a reason you can't just post in the "game analysis" section of the Forum?  Do you need an actual tournament, or would it be enough to have an infrastructure where once a week a game of yours gets critiqued by a stronger player?  (Still not trying to be a pest...)

Matthew

Maybe. In-depth discussion has always been one of my goals with this event, but my other goal was data collection. Playing against different people playing different sets provides a useful set of data when it comes to troubleshooting or selecting an opening. Or I think it would, anyway.


on 05/05/13 at 18:05:48, mattj256 wrote:
 I feel like too much of a beginner to say much, except that the strategy/mindset would have to be different between Gold and Silver.  Personally I think the important distinction is "committed" versus "flexible."  And Fritzlein uses the terms "home" and "away" all the time.  Also there's the question of how willing you are to pull enemy rabbits or allow your own rabbits to be pulled.  I would sincerely hope that there's no one "objective" best setup!  Personally I'm experimenting with the 99of9 setup but the camel behind the elephant.  On the first move I move my elephant and camel two steps forward each.  I've never seen anyone else do it but it certainly fits my playing style!


I'm not worried about players having the same opening strategy/mindset, one player will prevail and then we can have probably endless discussion about why things turned out the way they did.

EDIT: Would you be up for a game sometime? I'm curious to see how that opening of yours plays out. I feel like it could be vulnerable to an aggressive strategy.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on May 6th, 2013, 2:26am

on 05/06/13 at 00:38:58, crazyharry wrote:
EDIT: Would you be up for a game sometime? I'm curious to see how that opening of yours plays out. I feel like it could be vulnerable to an aggressive strategy.
Yeah we should play some time.  I'm usually on 2am-6am UTC.  You'll probably wipe the floor with me.  I'm not aggressive with my camel to begin with, so setting up with the camel on the back row feels comfortable.  I'm only rated 1500 so I'm sure I have a lot to learn...
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 6th, 2013, 10:33am

on 05/06/13 at 02:26:35, mattj256 wrote:
Yeah we should play some time.  I'm usually on 2am-6am UTC.  You'll probably wipe the floor with me.  I'm not aggressive with my camel to begin with, so setting up with the camel on the back row feels comfortable.  I'm only rated 1500 so I'm sure I have a lot to learn...

Oh, wait, that's right. Camel in the back row... Somehow I envisioned this dangerously aggressive E+M strategy where the camel moves into the center on the first move. Well, that is always a possibility, but I am at kind of a crossroads in the development of my opening right now, so nothing is assured. I'll have to look at my schedule and get back to you with a time. Lately I've been eating dinner over at my grandparents-in-law's and 2am UTC is dinner/gin and tonic time over there; not really conducive to skillful arimaa play. Probably someday later this week I'll be able to figure out a sober evening to challenge you.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 14th, 2013, 11:25am
Alright, I'd like to get this thing going.

New proposal:

Players play a six game series. The first two games the players take turns using a 99of9 setup while the other uses whatever set they want. The second two games the players take turns using an EHH setup while the other uses whatever set they want. The final two games the players both use whatever set they want and take turns playing as gold and silver.

Would anybody be willing to play a couple rounds with me as sort of a beta test?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by supersamu on May 15th, 2013, 7:45am
I would be willing to play with you.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 15th, 2013, 10:25am

on 05/15/13 at 07:45:17, supersamu wrote:
I would be willing to play with you.

Sweet! I'm usually able to be available for such things between 0:00 and 5:00 UTC on weekdays, and on weekends I can usually shift things around so I can be available just about whenever you are. What's your availability?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by supersamu on May 17th, 2013, 5:58am
Shortly after scheduling my first game with crazyharry on Friday 1800 UTC, an Idea came to my mind for a better format:
6 games will be played between the players A and B:
1st game: A(99of9) vs B(Setup_B)
2nd game: B(99of9) vs A(Setup_B)
3rd game: B(99of9) vs A(Setup_A)
4th game: A(99of9) vs B(Setup_A)
and then 2 "normal" games with alternating colors.
(The player first named is gold, the second silver. Setup_B is the setup B chooses for himself after A sets up the pieces in the first game, Setup_A is the setup A chooses for himself after B sets up the pieces in the third game.)

This would have the advantage that the players see how it is to play against their preferred setup.
There is the disadvantage that EHH Setups will not be specifically trained, but I don´t think that this is so important, because not many players choose an EHH Setup as gold.
What do you think?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 17th, 2013, 12:09pm

on 05/17/13 at 05:58:56, supersamu wrote:
Shortly after scheduling my first game with crazyharry on Friday 1800 UTC, an Idea came to my mind for a better format:
6 games will be played between the players A and B:
1st game: A(99of9) vs B(Setup_B)
2nd game: B(99of9) vs A(Setup_B)
3rd game: B(99of9) vs A(Setup_A)
4th game: A(99of9) vs B(Setup_A)
and then 2 "normal" games with alternating colors.
(The player first named is gold, the second silver. Setup_B is the setup B chooses for himself after A sets up the pieces in the first game, Setup_A is the setup A chooses for himself after B sets up the pieces in the third game.)

This would have the advantage that the players see how it is to play against their preferred setup.
There is the disadvantage that EHH Setups will not be specifically trained, but I don´t think that this is so important, because not many players choose an EHH Setup as gold.
What do you think?

I like it. It hadn't occurred to me to include something like that, but some of the best strategic information I've collected came from games against myself.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying about EHH, but having an EHH round has always been a bit of a stretch to me, because I don't really know how to play EHH. Mostly I just wanted an EHH round included to be able to test unbalanced setups. If enough people decide to try unbalanced setups, the final two games might suffice to provide that data.

Would it be a good idea to allow a player to modify their setup slightly from the first pair of games to the last? It might be something people could exploit to take advantage of weaknesses they've noticed in their opponent's set, but from a tinkering perspective, especially with a relatively untested setup, it might be nice to be able to tweak things a little bit to correct catastrophic weaknesses (or less than catastrophic weaknesses, for that matter).
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on May 19th, 2013, 11:14pm

on 05/17/13 at 05:58:56, supersamu wrote:
1st game: A(99of9) vs B(Setup_B)
2nd game: B(99of9) vs A(Setup_B)
3rd game: B(99of9) vs A(Setup_A)
4th game: A(99of9) vs B(Setup_A)
I like this a lot!  Having a pair of games where the two players play identical setups but with colors reversed is a great idea!


on 05/17/13 at 05:58:56, supersamu wrote:
and then 2 "normal" games with alternating colors.
Two suggestions:
  • In the 5th game both players are free to choose whatever setup they want, but in the 6th game they must play exactly the same setup but with colors reversed.  (To be fair, the choice of gold/silver should be randomized in game 5.)
  • I like that games 5 and 6 are freestyle, but if you want to include EHH you could use my previous suggestion and mandate that Gold and/or Silver must play EHH in both games.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 21st, 2013, 8:34pm
supersamu and I played the first four games of the series he suggested. I'm pretty happy with it as it is. I don't know if we'll schedule and play the last two games or not. He doesn't think the last two games are necessary, but he should probably be the one to explain his reasoning. I am undecided on the matter. I think that considering the difficulties involved in scheduling games with an opponent on the other side of the globe, a shorter series is better, but I feel the last two games could present some interesting opportunities.

I've been thinking about the format today, and I think a compromise could be reached by making the 5th and 6th games in the series optional.

I've also been thinking about the format in general, and I was wondering what people would think about making the whole thing informal and operated more on a request basis than an organized event basis.

What I'm thinking is we could have the supersamu series be kind of a standard series of games for people to work with for general training, but ultimately people could play with whatever format they want.

Someone could just make a post here saying, "Hey, I'd like to play a standard series with someone." And somebody else could accept their challenge and off they'd go. Browni remarked in chat the other day that he'd like to play more games against EHH, so in his case, he could just propose a series like the one supersamu suggested, but with EHH substituted for 99of9. Hypothetically, someone could even just suggest a single game, although I'd prefer that there be at least two games because reciprocity is always nice.

Do you think people would actually use such a system? Or would things stall without someone driving things?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on May 22nd, 2013, 2:04am

on 05/21/13 at 20:34:15, crazyharry wrote:
Do you think people would actually use such a system? Or would things stall without someone driving things?

How does the Endless Endgame Event work, and how do regular tournaments work, in terms of scheduling?  If just scheduling one game is challenging, the ideal would be to schedule all 4-6 games in one shot.  Do we have automation to support that?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 22nd, 2013, 11:56am

on 05/22/13 at 02:04:43, mattj256 wrote:
How does the Endless Endgame Event work, and how do regular tournaments work, in terms of scheduling?  If just scheduling one game is challenging, the ideal would be to schedule all 4-6 games in one shot.  Do we have automation to support that?

Clyring puts together pairings for the EEE every couple of weeks or so. The participants then communicate with their opponents to schedule the games. I like working this way because it's simple.

I think an automated system is best for things like the World Championship where it is absolutely vital that the games be scheduled within a one week period and therefore some sacrifices in playing time might have to be made on the part of participants. For something informal like this, I would prefer that the scheduling remain informal as well, even if that means it takes a month for a pair of players to finish up their series. I think giving people more choice in scheduling and not rushing them through their games will result in better quality games and better learning experiences for everyone.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by mattj256 on May 22nd, 2013, 11:03pm

on 05/22/13 at 11:56:22, crazyharry wrote:
I think giving people more choice in scheduling and not rushing them through their games will result in better quality games and better learning experiences for everyone.

I totally agree.  It seems like the most important thing is to keep the scheduling reasonably decentralized.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 23rd, 2013, 10:04am

on 05/22/13 at 23:03:51, mattj256 wrote:
I totally agree.  It seems like the most important thing is to keep the scheduling reasonably decentralized.

The only question holding things up now is whether or not the pairing should be centralized. Would people post a request for someone to play a series with them when they want to work on an opening, and would people respond to the requests of others?

If enough people are up for that sort of thing, I think we could be ready to just run with it and make adjustments as we go.
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by Brendan_M on May 25th, 2013, 4:54am
Can I suggest a rename?

'Ongoing Opening Ovent'
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 25th, 2013, 11:58am

on 05/25/13 at 04:54:28, Brendan_M wrote:
Can I suggest a rename?

'Ongoing Opening Ovent'

OOE isn't enough alliteration for you?
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 25th, 2013, 12:21pm
Here are the links to the series I played against supersamu for your viewing pleasure.

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=266150

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=266165

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=266269

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=266348
Title: Re: Ongoing Opening Event?
Post by crazyharry on May 25th, 2013, 1:18pm
I would like to play two series.

The first using supersamu's series outline:
1st game: A(99of9) vs B(Setup_B)
2nd game: B(99of9) vs A(Setup_B)
3rd game: B(99of9) vs A(Setup_A)
4th game: A(99of9) vs B(Setup_A)

And the second using an EHH variation of the same:
1st game: A(EHH) vs B(Setup_B)
2nd game: B(EHH) vs A(Setup_B)
3rd game: B(EHH) vs A(Setup_A)
4th game: A(EHH) vs B(Setup_A)

Is anybody interested in playing one or both of those series with me?


Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.