Arimaa Forum - Print Page


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

        Arimaa >> General Discussion >> More functional setup
        
(Message started by: Gerenuk on Mar 7^th, 2008, 7:23am)

Title: More functional setup
Post by Gerenuk on Mar 7^th, 2008, 7:23am

What are other ideas of initial setting up besides 99of9?
I've seen R behind trap, but not sure of significant other.

How about a functional setup? You want to start an EH attack, so why don't you put your H in the a-file (and E on c-file)?

Or how about a different piece balancing? I thought of E on one wing and MHH on other wing?
Maybe you experts have some experience or comments on that, but of course I'll also try it out myself.
Some comments could help me spot weaknesses :)

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by jdb on Mar 7^th, 2008, 8:10am

In my opinion,

If you are planning to play defensive then the 99of9 setup is good.

If you are planning on launching an attack then there is still lots of room for opening experimentation.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by omar on Mar 10^th, 2008, 10:02am

I think the area of initial setups is wide open for a lot of experimentation. Fritzlein has been using a setup with 4 rabbits on the front line throughout the 2008 WC games. Although I would think this is a weak setup it has been working pretty good for him. In his final game of the 2008 WC (against arimaa_master) Naveed used a setup with the Elephant on one side and the camel on the other (as opposed to the more common setup of both near the center) and I thought that was a good idea (especially since arimaa_master's camel was on the same side as Naveed's elephant), but it seemed to make his play weaker than usual. Hard to say if it was due to the setup or if Naveed was just having a bad day. Often times it is hard to know what works or doesn't in practice until you've actually tried it many times. I think the approach Frizlein is taking with regularly using his setup in games against various different human opponents is the best way to go about testing a particular setup.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by chessandgo on Mar 10^th, 2008, 10:35am

As Omar and jbd say, there's plenty of room for experimentation as regards to setups, so please give a try to all setups you like, Gerenuk !

This said, I'm not optimistic about E-MHH. The E has to be free to go anywhere it is needed, so one wing might quickly become undefended. An interesting idea is the EHH-M setup, the idea being to E+H attack with a second horse on support, while the caMel is strong enough to defend the other wing alone.
The more I see Fritzl's setup with rabbits behind traps, the more I like it.

Anyway, feel free to experiment ! :)

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by Gerenuk on Mar 11^th, 2008, 9:45pm

Do rabbits behind traps not get pulled?

True. MHH can't be good as the E on its own can't bind other strong pieces.

Think I try Mc2, Ef2 for setup. Seems to spare me from hiding my camel and saving one move for EH attack. Unfortunately bots go for H hostage, so I don't really know if that makes sense, yet. Should try humans.

I even tried to analyse the game before start playing :)
My simple model was:
Capturing a trap with two pieces only is hard, unless you remove hb6 by
- Ha6 and E-h-pull/push
- E-h-push, Hb4; Hb6, Ec5
- Hc5, double E-h push to east
- any other?

I assumed 3 pieces to attack are better. In my model you want to have the strongest piece at the trap and your 2nd strongest should be better than his 3rd strongest (assuming your strongest piece can take care of his 2nd strongest for a moment).
By this theory:
- EMD beats anything but e__
- EHD (EH attack) beats anything but e__ or mhh
- MHD beats anything but e__ or m__
My conclusion is that
1.H should be split (EH, MH)
2.do a EH attack
3.MHH could be good defensive on its own?

So EH-attack follows from "theory" without playing :)

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 11^th, 2008, 11:42pm

on 03/11/08 at 21:45:49, Gerenuk wrote:

Do rabbits behind traps not get pulled?

Theoretically rabbits behind traps are easy to push or pull into the open. In practice it seems not to work out so easily, which is yet another reason to distrust theory. Tactically there are defenses: d2/e2 can be blocked so the opposing elephant can't get at c2/f2; also c3/f3 can be occupied so that the rabbits can't be pushed forwards; finally an elephant blockade is sometimes in the offing if the opposing elephant ends the turn on c2/f2.

However, the most important factor seems to be time. If your opponent is willing to make a multi-piece attack, your lone elephant will usually have more pressing things to attend to than pulling a rabbit. Similarly if you are attempting to launch a multi-piece attack, your elephant has other concerns. The vulnerability of the rabbits behind the traps mostly seems to come into play in dual-lone-elephant openings, which I am not inclined to play these days.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by Gerenuk on Mar 12^th, 2008, 7:46am

on 03/11/08 at 23:42:43, Fritzlein wrote:

Theoretically rabbits behind traps are easy to push or pull into the open.

I was thinking of going Hc5, Ed6 and pulling the rabbit into the trap c6. At least I personally found it annoying when my rabbits are in my trap.
Will that not work?

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 12^th, 2008, 8:19am

on 03/12/08 at 07:46:38, Gerenuk wrote:

I was thinking of going Hc5, Ed6 and pulling the rabbit into the trap c6. At least I personally found it annoying when my rabbits are in my trap.
Will that not work?

Definitely that will work to pull a rabbit... but where is the opposing elephant in this picture? If the opposing elephant is defending, you have to worry about your attacking horse being framed in c6 or flipped into the middle of the board. If the opposing elephant is attacking with a horse (or more?) on your home side of the board, you have to worry that that attack is scoring gains bigger than just pulling a rabbit. (And your own attacking elephant can't leave to defend without leaving your attacking horse unable to pull a rabbit and perhaps even vulnerable to capture. Really we also have to ask where the opposing camel is too before we evaluate your threat to pull a rabbit.)

I'm not saying that the rabbits behind the traps are not vulnerable, or that it isn't annoying when they are pulled. My point is that favorable piece placement is more important than rabbit pulls. If your opponent is concentrating on piece play while you are concentrating on pulling a rabbit, you may find that the rabbit you managed to pull is worth less than (A) losing control of a home trap or (B) giving up your camel hostage or (C) giving up a horse hostage to the opposing camel or (D) giving up a small piece hostage in the middle of the board.

Rabbit exposure does matter, but most of the time I have bigger fish to fry.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by mistre on Mar 12^th, 2008, 9:10am

If the theory that rabbit pulling is good (in most games) then it makes sense to position ones rabbits in the setup in one of three ways.

Rabbits on a1, b1, c1, f1, g1, and h1 are pretty safe from being pulled. That leaves 2 remaining rabbits to be placed.

First option is all rabbits in back row. This is the default setting and one that was most used by everybody when Arimaa began. However, over time it was found that rabbits on d1 and e1 were susceptible to being pulled.

Most players decided to switch over to 99of9 setup which featured those two rabbits on a2 and h2 instead. Players found that they could "tuck their rabbits" into b2 and g2 behind another piece (probably a horse that advanced to b3 or g3) and make it more difficult to pull.

A third seemingly valid way to protect rabbits is to put the remaining 2 rabbits behind the traps. I have been experimenting will this setup myself with decent results. What this setup does is make it very difficult for your opponent to make rabbit pulls with any piece but their elephant. And unlike rabbits on d1 and e1, if he does attempt to pull it, he will likely have to put his elephant in an awkward position that could lead to a blockade or at least a loss of momentum. The third reason to use this setup is that not a lot of people have experience playing against it which leads to an element of surprise.

It can be argued one way or the other which is better, rabbits on a2 and h2 or behind the traps. Since I don't see a huge advantage either way, I like behind the traps because it is not commonly used.

A 4th rabbit setup which was made popular by Fritzlein recently involves placing rabbits behind the traps AND on a2 and h2. 4 rabbits forward is a setup that doesn't care about rabbit pulls because the player has a different objective - namely to swarm the other side. Swarming is a very difficult technique and I would only recommend it for the most experienced players. Versus just about any bot, it is not needed, as they can be beat many other ways (Lone Elephant and E-H attacks work just fine). But players with a lot of tactical skill can make the swarm work and it can be deadly.

As for where to setup your other pieces? The E is most effective on D2 or E2. Players have tried other spots on the 2nd row, but I just don't see the advantage of any other spot except for the element of surprise. Surely don't put your E on the first row!

The Camel is trickier. A new player might benefit from placing a camel on the first row (on d1 or E1), at least until he gets more comfortable in avoiding a camel hostage. Generally I prefer the Camel next to the E in the middle for flexibility. The other option is on the wing, but then you are susceptible to an E-H-H on the other wing. I would be more apt to try M on the wing if I was silver than if I was gold. I also use M on wing versus bot_Aamira. It's strategy never involves camel hostage, so you are pretty safe with that setup.

The final consideration for setup is where to put the dogs and cats. In "rabbits behind the traps", and "all rabbits back", I think dogs on a2 and h2 is superior to cats. In 99of9, it is a tossup between dogs and cats behind the traps. I'm not sure about "4 rabbits forward", Fritz could chime in on that one.

I hope that this gives you a better idea about the best starting setups (or at least the most popular!) Feel free to experiment and find what works best for you.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 12^th, 2008, 10:01am

on 03/12/08 at 09:10:10, mistre wrote:

The final consideration for setup is where to put the dogs and cats. In "rabbits behind the traps", and "all rabbits back", I think dogs on a2 and h2 is superior to cats. In 99of9, it is a tossup between dogs and cats behind the traps. I'm not sure about "4 rabbits forward", Fritz could chime in on that one.

For the 99of9 setup, I have changed my mind several times between having cats behind the traps, or dogs, or one of each. We call it "the 99of9 setup" regardless of how the cats and dogs are permuted, as long as the rabbits and heavy pieces are in the standard places. However, 99of9's preference has always been clear, so strictly speaking the 99of9 setup has cats behind the traps.

3 | | | * | | | * | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | R | H | C | E | M | C | H | R |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 | R | R | R | D | D | R | R | R |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h

I think the same would apply to my currently preferred setup. I'm not entirely sure whether to have back central cats or dogs, and I would be flattered if all the cat/dog permutations came to be referred to as the Fritz setup (I experimented with it already in the 2005 World Championship, game 10252), but the Fritz setup has cats on the wings.

3 | | | * | | | * | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | R | H | R | E | M | R | H | R |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 | R | C | R | D | D | R | C | R |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h

I guess if we want name all the standard setups after somebody, we could call the default game room setup the Omar setup, with cat and dog permutations all still being the Omar setup.

3 | | | * | | | * | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | D | H | C | E | M | C | H | D |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h

I don't suppose Omar would mind, given that he still uses the setup, including in six of his eight games in the just-completed World Championship

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/showGame.cgi?gid=71346

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/showGame.cgi?gid=70820

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/showGame.cgi?gid=70403

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/showGame.cgi?gid=70145

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/showGame.cgi?gid=69656

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/showGame.cgi?gid=68713

All of these most popular setups have horses on b2/g2 and centralized elephant and camel. Interestingly the experiments with unbalanced horses, decentralized elephants, and decentralized camels have been done mostly by attacking players such as blue22 and robinson.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by mistre on Mar 12^th, 2008, 11:21am

on 03/12/08 at 10:01:02, Fritzlein wrote:

I guess if we want name all the standard setups after somebody, we could call the default game room setup the Omar setup, with cat and dog permutations all still being the Omar setup.

Yes, but the actual default when you start a game has the horses on A2 and H2 and the dogs on B2 and G2. Was this the original setup that everyone used?

With players choosing to start Horses on B2 and G2 probably 99% of the time, it makes sense for Omar to change the default setup by switching the Horses with the Dogs. It would require fewer piece movements at the beginning of a match no matter what preferred set-up you choose, and would be particularly useful when you need to save precious seconds in a blitz game.

Also, who gets to have the "rabbits behind the traps" setup named after them?

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 12^th, 2008, 11:48am

on 03/12/08 at 11:21:23, mistre wrote:

Also, who gets to have the "rabbits behind the traps" setup named after them?

I think you get the honor if you keep on doing it despite what everyone else is doing. Naveed experimented with rabbits behind the traps a couple of years ago, but gave it up before long. Others tried it for an even shorter time span. If you are more persistent about it than they were (especially if nobody else makes it their default) then it is all yours. :)

I probably haven't been playing with four rabbits forward long enough to stick my name on it, but every time someone else tries the setup and rejects it, while I keep on using it in spite of all the reasons not to use it, the more it is uniquely mine. I'm going be stubborn about it, not because it works best, but because I insist on doing it long enough that people are forced name it for me. :P

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by nbarriga on Mar 17^th, 2008, 5:35pm

Someone that has access to a decent bot could try and run a few dozen games with the 3 or 4 more popular setups to see if there is a statistically relevant performance result. I would do it, but my bot is utter crap.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by ginrunner on Dec 13^th, 2010, 2:38am

sorry for the necro but recently I have found this set up to be doing fairly well (I know other are using it and I tried to experiment a bit with it but this seems to be the best for me)

HHREDRMD
RRRCCRRR

I tend to be fairly aggressive with it as it has rabbits behind the traps (which actually tends to be a fairly nice decoy even versus human opponents 1800 and up sometimes) the HHE on a single side allows me to quickly threaten the opponents trap while the camel on the other side allows me to defend with the camel without over extending myself. If my opponent pushes back hard enough to put me on the defensive i merely move the rabbits behind the trap 1 closer to the edge and typically replace it with a cat. If they think it is wise to move the elephant behind the trap it is not too much trouble to hostage the elephant with a mass of small pieces and dominate the game that way.

The reason for this set up is a feel 1) rabbits are weak on the fron row as they are able to be pulled as a "plan b" for opponents that are having trouble developing elsewhere. rabbits also tend to be weak on the very center of the board. A rabbit pulled in the center tends to block one's own pieces as well as become more threatened to further pulling. 2) 2 horses on 1 side allows me to make a semi - frame (i heard someone call it a "fritz frame" at some point) anywhere on the board, most typically diagonal to one of my own traps.

Thoughts on major weaknesses of the set up? I have noticed that it does not work as well with Silver but if someone is playing silver they have the ability to make something tailored to whatever they see and so it isn't as much of a big deal.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by Fritzlein on Dec 13^th, 2010, 10:56am

on 12/13/10 at 02:38:25, ginrunner wrote:

[...]I have found this set up to be doing fairly well[...]

If you have experimented until finding a setup that works well for you, then you are doing exactly the right thing. The last time I participated in a round of discussing specific openings, I came away more persuaded than ever of the futility of suggesting setups instead of teaching middlegame principles and letting everyone choose a setup based on the kind of middlegame they are aiming for.

One data point was seeing a bot start with rabbits behind its traps, only to rotate them towards the edges at the first opportunity. The bot's eval didn't like rabbits behind traps, so putting them there was a consistent waste of time. Rabbits behind the traps are by no means objectively bad, but they are bad for a bot that doesn't want them there because it doesn't understand what the point is.

Another data point was observing a beginner set up with camel and rabbits forward on a wing because he had read that it opened the possibility of a MRRR swarm at some point. A few moves into the the game he started to swarm and promptly lost his camel in the opposing trap. He totally reversed cause and effect, i.e. he swarmed because he had chosen a setup which invited it, having no idea how to launch a camel-led swarm or why you would even want to. The sane proceeding would be for someone to first understand how a camel-led swarm works, and only then start using a setup that enables it.

I see Omar has set up a wiki page on openings in response to popular demand, but it's a demand I'm not going to fulfill. Beginners may want to study openings, but whether they want to or not, it is a waste of their time. In my opinion, one should study middlegames first, endgames second, and openings only when you get good enough, say a rating of 3000 or so.

In the mean time, doing what ginrunner is doing is exactly right. Try out various setups and see which works for you. When you talk about a setup, talk about it in terms of middlegame features like EH attack, elephant blockade, "Fritz frame" (that's the first time for me to hear that term), rabbit pulling, etc., and not in terms of specific move sequences 1g, 1s, 2g, 2s, etc.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by omar on Dec 16^th, 2010, 1:24pm

I agree with Karl that studying opening is not worth it until we get much better. For now it's just fun experimenting with different setups and developing a feel for them as different setups tend to lead to different types of middle games.

I also agree with Bernardo that for a complete beginner it would be good to at least know what some of the common setups being used are. Just to help them get started. It also helps them know what we are talking about if they hear someone say something like the '99of9 setup' or 'Fritzlein setup'.

Title: Re: More functional setup
Post by ginrunner on Jan 12^th, 2011, 3:53pm

I just had one of those obvious epiphanies that I am sure the elite players here already inherently know but I felt it was worth sharing anyways. The opening setup more or less dictates the style in which you will play. I have come to the conclusion that Fritz is correct and the middle game is where the game is won and loss (see my WC game vs The_Jeh where I "won" the opening and then get destroyed in the middle). In my WC game after I had hostaged his horse he swung his camel to the other side and took my dog hostage easily because it was simply vulnerable. I have been tweaking my setup on my camel side and have made one change; switch the dog on the wall with the rabbit behind the camel. The setup still has the same initial goals and strategies but the tactics are much much easier. My pieces no longer get in the way of each other (or at least they do it much less). I am not saying my setup is perfect by any means but the change has allowed my middle game to develop much more easily and quickly. Basically, the opening setup determines what you have the ability to do and more specifically how fast you can do it. Another example would be the setup I have been seeing that has the Elephant behind a trap. The first move is almost forced in that the horse moves up and then the Elephant moves up at least 2. This may be better for positioning early but the move is forced and therefor can be dealt with before the game has even started. I feel like this is a mistake (though I may be wrong).

Anyways, those are my current 2 cents.

edit: I also just realized that I reiterated what fritz said in his last post on this thread. Basically, in a nutshell, there are good starting sets for what you are aiming for and there are bad opening sets.