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

        Arimaa >> General Discussion >> english arimaa terminlogy
        
(Message started by: chessandgo on Feb 15th, 2010, 8:56am)
Title: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by chessandgo on Feb 15th, 2010, 8:56am
Dear all,

as my book is getting closer and closer to the definitive version, I am currently dealing with terminlogy / language issues. For purely english issues I'm asking questions in the word reference forums, but I still have a few arimaa terminology questions.


  • In a position, several traps are contested by both players. Does the expression "Multiple trap contest" correctly convey this idea? [EDIT: Greg and Karl seem to like "Multi-Trap Fight" in the chatroom".

  • Silver's camel lies on g6, gold's Horse attacks around b6, and silver decides to move his camel towards b6 in the next moves. The camel is going to move along the 7th file to dodge the enemy Elephant. Is it correct to say that:
    Silver camel crosses to the western wing
    Silver camel crosses over to the western wing
    Silver camel crosses underneath (over?) to the western wing
    Silver crosses with his camel (over?) to the western wing
    Silver changes wings with his camel

  • To denote any piece but not the elephant, is it correct to say: (edit)
    a non-elephant piece


  • (edit) Silver hostages a gold Horse on a6 with a camel on b6, supported by a horse on a5, and pieces on a7 a8 b7 c7. To denote all these silver pieces that take part in the hostage situation, is it correct to say Silver's hostaging pattern?


Ok, that's about it :)

Thanks for any insight!

Jean
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by novacat on Feb 15th, 2010, 10:10am
Hi Jean,

Going from last to first:

  • "Silver's hostaging pattern" works if you have told the reader what pieces and position make the hostaging pattern.


  • "A non-elephant piece" is correct with the hyphen between non and elephant.


  • All are ok except "underneath,"  but none convey that the camel will stay on the 7th file to avoid the enemy elephant.  You will need to add to the sentence to clarify because "over" implies "to the other side" in this case.  
    For example, "The sliver camel crosses to the western wing while staying north (or "while it stays on the 7th file" or "while keeping away from the opposing elephant")."


  • The words "Multiple," "trap" and "contest" are good, but may have to be adjusted and/or rearranged depending on what you are saying.  "Multiple trap contest" makes "contest" a noun.  Thus, you can say "Both players are in a multiple trap contest."  However, if you want to use it as a verb, it must be rearranged.  
    For example, "Both players contest multiple traps," or "Multiple traps are contested."


I hope this helps,
Daniel
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 15th, 2010, 10:21am

on 02/15/10 at 08:56:29, chessandgo wrote:
[...] my book is getting closer and closer to the definitive version [...]

Yay!  It will be a happy day for the Arimaa community.


Quote:
For purely english issues I'm asking questions in the word reference forums, but I still have a few arimaa terminology questions.

We talked about this in the chat room, but I thought I would summarize here anyway so that people who weren't in on the conversation can read and respond.


Quote:
In a position, several traps are contested by both players. Does the expression "Multiple trap contest" correctly convey this idea? [EDIT: Greg and Karl seem to like "Multi-Trap Fight" in the chatroom".

Also we liked "three-corner" and "four-corner" as more specific adjectives.  Also I like using "fight" or "battle" as the noun to suggest greater activity.  The word "contest" is too passive to convey the idea that you are only talking about the areas of the board where the tactics are sharp.  After all, you can have a "beauty contest", but not a "beauty fight".  ;)

Also suggested were "three-front war", "Battle Royale", and "full-board brawl".


Quote:
Silver's camel lies on g6, gold's Horse attacks around b6, and silver decides to move his camel towards b6 in the next moves. The camel is going to move along the 7th file to dodge the enemy Elephant. Is it correct to say that:
Silver camel crosses to the western wing
Silver camel crosses over to the western wing
Silver camel crosses underneath (over?) to the western wing
Silver crosses with his camel (over?) to the western wing
Silver changes wings with his camel

I found it more natural in my book to refer to what the silver camel is doing rather than what Silver is doing with her camel.  (Note also that I capitalized Silver the noun but not silver the adjective; other conventions may vary.)  The time when it is more natural to refer to what the person is doing is when more than one piece is involved.

I don't think you can "cross under" without specifying what it is that you pass under.  It is more common to "cross over" without saying what it is that you pass over, but I think I have a slight preference for just "cross to" when you want to emphasize the sides rather than the middle.

Indeed, when there is nothing of importance being crossed (e.g. not "cross the river", or "cross The Sahara"), then I would prefer switching sides.  So in the above situation, I recommend "The silver camel crosses under the gold elephant", or "The silver camel switches to the western wing," or for brevity, "The silver camel switches sides."


Quote:
To denote any piece but not the elephant, is it correct to say:
a non elephant piece

Just hypehnate: a non-elephant piece


Quote:
(edit) Silver hostages a gold Horse on a6 with a camel on b6, supported by a horse on a5, and pieces on a7 a8 b7 c7. To denote all these silver pieces that take part in the hostage situation, is it correct to say Silver's hostaging pattern?

I would say, "Silver's hostage pattern".  It sounds more static, i.e. it is a pattern that holds a hostage, not a pattern that acquires a hostage.

As more Arimaa books come out, you can bet that I will be paying close attention to how other authors express themselves.  Developing our language will always slightly lag the development of our strategic conceptions, so writing about Arimaa will be a difficult discipline for a long time to come.
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by chessandgo on Feb 15th, 2010, 12:15pm

on 02/15/10 at 10:21:17, Fritzlein wrote:
 After all, you can have a "beauty contest", but not a "beauty fight".  ;)


You did find what will become the most important 3rd millenium concept I hope :)



on 02/15/10 at 10:21:17, Fritzlein wrote:
I would say, "Silver's hostage pattern".  


Oh yeah, this does sound better. Thanks!

Daniel: Ok, thanks for your advice. All items but "the underneath" one did not intend conveying the meaning of going thru the 7th rank, I should have made that clearer. I'm going to stick with Karl's switching sides I guess. Maybe using something like "the camel switches sides through the 7th row" for that under thing.
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 15th, 2010, 12:40pm
Hmm, I just realized that if the silver camel switches sides it might be fighting for the gold army.  :P  Maybe crossing under the gold elephant isn't so bad after all.  But anyway switching wings should be safe.
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by chessandgo on Feb 15th, 2010, 1:57pm
ok :) switching wings looks good. Actually I am using wing rather than side to denote east/west I think.
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 15th, 2010, 3:24pm
I also used "flank" to mean east/west.
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by chessandgo on Feb 16th, 2010, 1:29pm
Ok, I have another question. In some chapter, the first few sections have been theoretic, with example positions just designed on purpose. In the last Section of the Chapter are presented parts of real games relevant to the Chapter topic. Could I entitle this Section:


Game samples

or

Sample games

or ...?

I want to convey the meaning that what is presented is some parts of some games.
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by Adanac on Feb 16th, 2010, 1:57pm

on 02/16/10 at 13:29:42, chessandgo wrote:
Ok, I have another question. In some chapter, the first few sections have been theoretic, with example positions just designed on purpose. In the last Section of the Chapter are presented parts of real games relevant to the Chapter topic. Could I entitle this Section:


Game samples

or

Sample games

or ...?

I want to convey the meaning that what is presented is some parts of some games.


I would recommend "Sample Games".
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by Arimabuff on Feb 16th, 2010, 5:22pm

on 02/16/10 at 13:29:42, chessandgo wrote:
Ok, I have another question. In some chapter, the first few sections have been theoretic, with example positions just designed on purpose. In the last Section of the Chapter are presented parts of real games relevant to the Chapter topic. Could I entitle this Section:


Game samples

or

Sample games

or ...?

I want to convey the meaning that what is presented is some parts of some games.

I'd rather use the term "Game excerpts" to express that idea.
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by 99of9 on Feb 16th, 2010, 6:34pm

on 02/16/10 at 13:29:42, chessandgo wrote:
I want to convey the meaning that what is presented is some parts of some games.

I totally disagree with Adanac :).  "Sample games" implies complete games, (chosen from amongst all games).

"Game samples" is a bit clunky and ambiguous about whether it's whole games or parts of games.

"Game excerpts" sounds perfect.  My vote is for the non-native English speaker!
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by chessandgo on Feb 17th, 2010, 12:14am
I did not even know the word excerpt!. Thanks for the find Arimabuff. And yeah, I'm posting a question whenever I realize my wording is clunky (leanrt another word here) :)

I have one reserve to use "Game excerpt": I'm also writing for non bilingual arimaa players, is the word "excerpt" common enough to be widely understood? Maybe that's not an issue though, it's going to be pretty clear what an excerpt is then (maybe?).
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by Fritzlein on Feb 17th, 2010, 6:44am
I agree with "game excerpts" when a position and several moves are given.  If it is an actual game position but without discussion of any of the actual moves, then I would refer to it as a position rather than as part of a game.  Indeed, it isn't a problem to refer to them as "positions" even when you discuss following moves.
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by chessandgo on Feb 17th, 2010, 9:39am
It's indeed several moves starting from a given position. Ok, I'm going to use excerpts. Thanks again Arimabuff.
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by chessandgo on Feb 25th, 2010, 7:35am
some more questions.

  • Is it correct to say
    The Horse stands on b6? Or The Horse sits on b6? Or The Horse lies on b6? Same question with all other animals ...:) I guess that one could say "the king stand on g8" at chess(?)

  • To denote the potential of a given rabbit to reach goal in the future, is it correct to speak of the goaling prospects of a rabbit or of the goal prospects of a rabbit or of the goal potential of a rabbit?


  • When a pair of horses have been traded, is it correct to describe the position as a position with one pair of horses down? (I'm concerned with using "with one pair of horses down" as a stand alone expression)

  • Is it correct to say: a board can be useful to play out the analysed games? I'm not sure about "play out".


Cheers :)

Jean
Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
Post by Adanac on Feb 25th, 2010, 8:48am

on 02/25/10 at 07:35:58, chessandgo wrote:
some more questions.
  • Is it correct to say
    The Horse stands on b6? Or The Horse sits on b6? Or The Horse lies on b6? Same question with all other animals ...:) I guess that one could say "the king stand on g8" at chess(?)

Technically all 3 are grammatically correct, but I think the most natural-sounding word is “stand”.  In the Wiki I’ll often use sentences like:

“With the Horse standing on b6, it is safe for the gold rabbit to advance up the c-file” or “after [insert suggested move] the horse will stand on the b6 square”, etc.

If you want to use the word “occupy” you should remove the word “on”:

“With the Horse occupying b6, it is safe for the gold rabbit to advance up the c-file” or “after [insert suggested move] the horse will occupy the b6 square”, etc.


Quote:
  • To denote the potential of a given rabbit to reach goal in the future, is it correct to speak of the goaling prospects of a rabbit or of the goal prospects of a rabbit or of the goal potential of a rabbit?


    • I think it’s fine to write something this: “The gold rabbit has excellent goal prospects from the b6 square” or “the rabbit’s goal prospects diminished after the silver camel moved to c7”.


    Quote:
  • When a pair of horses have been traded, is it correct to describe the position as a position with one pair of horses down? (I'm concerned with using "with one pair of horses down" as a stand alone expression)


    • It's more clear to say “with one pair of horses removed from the board…” or immediately after a horse trade: “after the exchange of horses…”.  

    I often use the word "down" if one player is losing:  "Down by a horse, Player A tried to gain the initiative with a rabbit advance", for example.


    Quote:
  • Is it correct to say: a board can be useful to play out the analysed games? I'm not sure about "play out".


    • “A board will be helpful for studying [or analysing] this game [or these selected games or game excerpts  :) ]”.  There are a lot of ways to write this so you may receive other suggestions that you like better.

    By the way, you’ve used “analyse” versus “analyze”.  Both are correct spellings but I would recommend choosing either British or American spellings and go with it consistently throughout your book.  Some common Arimaa words:

    British:  analyse, prioritise, centre, colour, favourite, manoeuvre, cancelled, travelled, offence, defence [but offensive, defensive in both countries]

    American: analyze, prioritize, center, color, favorite, manuever, canceled, traveled, offense, defense

    You'll notice a bit of French influence in both lists.  ;)  I’ve seen many professional journalists get confused about regional spellings and grammar so it's not that big of a deal.  Fortunately, the vast majority of English words are spelt the same everywhere…but not the word “spelt”!
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Feb 25th, 2010, 9:06am
    Thanks for your answer Greg.

    Ok, I'm going to use "goal prospects" for a rabbit, not only for a player.

    I'm actually looking for a title. The position features a camel hostage where a pair of horses have been traded. I thought "A camel hostage with a pair of horses down" sounded more like a catchphrase than the longer "A camel hostage where a pair of horses have been traded". Well, the latter is not much longer, and if the former is incorrect ... :)

    Maybe I should rather say "helpful for replaying the games"?

    Arg, I had not thought too much about that. I think I'm using a mix of AE and BE. Hmm.
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by Nevermind on Feb 25th, 2010, 9:10am
    Even though I am not a native speaker myself, I would still like to offer my opinion.

    1. As a neutral verb, I would use "occupy"

    "The horse occupies b6."

    "The gold horse occupying b6 will be a threat to silver's position."

    However, in certain situations the verbs "sitting" and "standing" could very well be justified. If a piece is involved in a rather static position, for example a camel hostage, one could probably say something like:

    "The gold elephant sitting on g3 will capture silver's camel if the silver elephant ever moves away from the f3 trap."

    In this example, the verb "sitting" implies that the gold elephant has no intention of leaving g3, and will rather just "sit" there.

    Likewise, "standing" would, in my mind, imply a willingness or ability to move to another square. A piece that "stands" on a particular square is ready to change its position quickly:

    "The rabbit standing on a3 will quickly rush to a7 if silver moves pieces away from the defense of the north-west quadrant."

    To summarize:

    Neutral: occupy
    Static, unchanging: sit
    Readiness to move: stand

    Of course, there are other verbs that one could use to describe particular circumstances:

    "The camel lurking on f2."
    "The dog hiding on a1."
    etc.

    2. While all the alternatives that you propose are essentially correct, I would prefer "the goaling potential" of a rabbit.

    The word potential implies that it is not certain in which way the rabbit will become a goal threat. Also, since potential is essentially a measure of something, one could use frases like

    "the goaling potential of the h6 rabbit will significantly increase if the elephant moves away from the f6 trap."

    To me, "goaling prospects" would be a bit more particular in describing how the rabbit will reach the goal. Consider the following example. I can have employment "prospects" as in several positions in particular firms or industries that I could apply to with considerable chances. Conversely, my employment "potential" is something that is not tied to particular firms or industries, but instead describes more the actual change that I will get a job. This is my linguistic intuition.

    Also, I would use "goaling" instead of "goal" because using a verb implies that the rabbit will have to undertake an action to reach the goal.

    3. I would not use the word "down", since it is often used to describe the net material deficit of one of the players: "Silver is down by a horse". Even though lots of material might have been lost by both sides, the net result is stated by down. If the net is asymmetrical, we would say: "Silver is down a horse for a rabbit" signifying that silver is still at a disadvantage (down), but that gold has one less rabbit than silver. Thus, I would not use "down" to describe a materially even position.

    If a trade has taken place, I would use the frase: "a position with a pair of horses traded." However, if each side has lost a horse at different times due to a blunder for example, one could say: "a position with one horse left on each side." For the purposes of your book, whether a trade has taken place, or whether both sides have simply blundered away one of their horses, is probably not meaningful. Thus, I would use the frase: "a position with a pair of horses traded".

    4. I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey here? Do you mean that a physical board is useful for the reader? In that case, I would say: A physical board can be useful for playing out the analyzed games." I think it is fine to use "play out" since it is often used to describe situations that will move towards an outcome e.g. "I am not sure how the new partnership will play out."

    Hopefully some of this rambling will be useful to you. This is only my opinion and intuition, and I welcome attempts to poke holes in it. :)
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Feb 25th, 2010, 9:32am
    ok, thanks for your help Nevermind. I guess I'm torn between two opinions in about all cases now :p

    Another question: do you say "a Rh2n step", or "an Rh2n step"? I'm going with "an Rh2 step" now, but I'm not sure that's it's correct given that R stands for Rabbit ...
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by aaaa on Feb 25th, 2010, 9:53am
    I would just use "Rh2n" in isolation.
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Feb 25th, 2010, 9:59am
    oh, I had started writing "rh2n" rather than " an rh2n step", but thought the latter might be better, like in:

    "Gold uses three steps to capture a Horse and plays an rh2n step". I guess I could say "... and play rh2n as a last step".
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by Nombril on Feb 25th, 2010, 11:59am
    I'm just an engineer, so I'm not sure if you should believe any of my grammar advice.  But I'll speak up anyway :P

    Goal is a noun, not a verb.  Goal potential or goal prospects are reasonable, but I would recommend against "goaling".   If you want to rearrange the phrase a bit, maybe try " the rabbit's prospects of reaching the goal" or "the rabbit's potential to reach the goal".

    As for the pair of horses - I guess I am confused if you meant all four horses were captured, or just one each.  I think of a pair as being both gold horses, not one gold and one silver.  If we trade a pair of horses, I would think that means we each lost two. But maybe you mean we have each lost one?  So depending on how many horses are captured, some options for a short title could be: "Camel hostage after all horses captured", or "Camel hostage after a horse trade".  If you don't like the implications "trade" puts on the play leading to the position, maybe the longer "Camel hostage after each player has lost a horse".
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Feb 25th, 2010, 12:24pm

    on 02/25/10 at 11:59:21, Nombril wrote:
    I'm just an engineer, so I'm not sure if you should believe any of my grammar advice.  But I'll speak up anyway :P

    Goal is a noun, not a verb.  Goal potential or goal prospects are reasonable, but I would recommend against "goaling".   If you want to rearrange the phrase a bit, maybe try " the rabbit's prospects of reaching the goal" or "the rabbit's potential to reach the goal".

    As for the pair of horses - I guess I am confused if you meant all four horses were captured, or just one each.  I think of a pair as being both gold horses, not one gold and one silver.  If we trade a pair of horses, I would think that means we each lost two. But maybe you mean we have each lost one?  So depending on how many horses are captured, some options for a short title could be: "Camel hostage after all horses captured", or "Camel hostage after a horse trade".  If you don't like the implications "trade" puts on the play leading to the position, maybe the longer "Camel hostage after each player has lost a horse".


    Oh yeah, I mean each player has lost one horse. Actually I do like your  "Camel hostage after a horse trade"!
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by Fritzlein on Feb 25th, 2010, 1:55pm

    on 02/25/10 at 09:06:42, chessandgo wrote:
    I thought "A camel hostage with a pair of horses down" sounded more like a catchphrase than the longer "A camel hostage where a pair of horses have been traded".

    You could say, "a camel hostage with a pair of horses off," meaning "off the board", which would be both brief and correct.  Someone could still object that they didn't know whether only two horses were off the board or all four, but to me "a pair" is clear enough.
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by Arimabuff on Feb 25th, 2010, 4:50pm

    on 02/25/10 at 13:55:20, Fritzlein wrote:
    You could say, "a camel hostage with a pair of horses off," meaning "off the board", which would be both brief and correct.  Someone could still object that they didn't know whether only two horses were off the board or all four, but to me "a pair" is clear enough.

    How about "a horseless camel hostage"?
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Feb 26th, 2010, 9:07am

    on 02/25/10 at 16:50:55, Arimabuff wrote:
    How about "a horseless camel hostage"?


    Each player still has one horse on the board.
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Feb 26th, 2010, 9:08am

    on 02/25/10 at 13:55:20, Fritzlein wrote:
    "a camel hostage with a pair of horses off"


    ah, this sounds good as well.
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by Miller on Feb 26th, 2010, 4:27pm
    A few comments from a native speaker:

    (1) It doesn't really sound entirely natural to speak of game pieces sitting, standing, etc. It's not horrible, but most people would simply say "The rabbit at b6 is a goal threat." or "The elephant at d2 is in danger of being blockaded." I can't think of many situations where I'd use a sentence that only stated the piece's position, but if I did, I'd say "The camel is at e5." or "The camel was at e5." Use present tense for all of these possibilities when presenting hypothetical problems and past tense when use things taken from past games.

    (2) "The silver camel moves to the left side." "The silver camel crosses to the left side." "The silver camel crosses over the enemy traps." "The silver camel crosses above the enemy traps."

    Compass directions are ok, but they'd be downright weird if they weren't already used in Arimaa notation. "Wing" is weird. "Side" and "flank" both sound pretty natural.

    (3) "Hostaging pattern" is extremely awkward. Use "hostage pattern"

    (4) "Game samples" most likely means samples from games. "Sample games" means games that are samples, and should only be used for complete games.

    (5) "Goal prospects" and "goal potential" are both decent. Anything longer is probably too long for something that will likely be used often in strategy books.

    (6) Arimaa has largely been an Internet phenomenon so far, which tends to make American English the likely choice, unless you want to write the whole book in 'leet-speak. ;) That said, it doesn't matter a bit as long as it's consistent. Neither British nor American English is clearly superior to the other.
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Feb 27th, 2010, 12:41am
    Ok, thanks for your help.

    I don't think "at e5" is standard; "on e5" seems to be. Also "wing" has been suggested by arimaa players (I was originally mostly using "side", which could also denote the player if I got it right).
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by Miller on Feb 27th, 2010, 8:04am
    The more I think about it, the more I like the "flank" suggestion. "Left flank" and "right flank" seem very clear and unambiguous. My concern with "wing" is that players new to Arimaa may find themselves saying "wait, what was a wing again?"

    As for "at" vs. "on", past experience with books on board games suggests that "at" is most common and "on" is second most. Both are clear and concise and I prefer them over anthropomorphic terms like "stand".
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by Janzert on Feb 27th, 2010, 8:21am
    Just as an additional data point. Wing sounds completely natural to me, but that may be from too much exposure to the term in Hockey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winger_%28ice_hockey%29). :)

    Janzert
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by clojure on Oct 2nd, 2010, 3:44pm
    I just accidentally this thread.

    I'm eager to hear what is the status on the book. Can we already pre-order it? Is there a content list of the book available?

    One relevant note about "flank".

    According to Merriam-webster it's about "the left or right of a formation". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flank

    I find it difficult concept to use in Arimaa.

    The pieces are often distributed across the board and it can be argued that individual pieces away from others are not in a formation.

    Worrisome is also that if you talk about a piece that "moves in a right flank". It feels weird, since the flank is actually changing when you are moving in it. The flank is a dynamic concept, as in comparison "side (of board)" or "column" is absolute. So if you want to talk about how the pieces move over time, it's hard with "flank".

    Just my 2 foreign cents that are spit on by beggars.
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Oct 6th, 2010, 2:44am
    Thanks for wording this!

    The book is basically where it was a couple months ago, somewhere along the proof-reading process. I was hoping to release it before next WC, but I guess it'll more likely be sometime in 2011. It'll be available on amazon (and no, no pre-ordering), and there will be an electronic version downloadable for free for 3 months after the book release.

    I'm going to post below the contents as they currently look (not necessarily definitive).
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Oct 6th, 2010, 2:51am
    http://www.lirmm.fr/~daligault/Contents1.jpg

    http://www.lirmm.fr/~daligault/Contents2.jpg

    http://www.lirmm.fr/~daligault/Contents3.jpg
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by clojure on Oct 6th, 2010, 3:23am
    Nice of you to post it, chessandgo.

    Have you noticed an equivalent of go's driving tesuji in Arimaa? In my current postal game, I forced opponent's elephant to escape near edge in a way that I could advance my position at the same time and get opponent's major pieces overconcentrated (go term).

    Starting from 7s: http://arimaa.com/arimaa/java/ys/ms4/v5/js_sit.cgi?sid=3313270883&grid=3&rand=88000786
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by rbarreira on Oct 6th, 2010, 4:12am
    That table of contents looks great!


    Quote:
    10.1 Simultaneous E+H Attacks on Facing Traps


    What does facing traps refer to?
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by Nevermind on Oct 6th, 2010, 5:53am
    WOW!

    The table of contents looks mind-boglingly, dinner-time-forgettingly, school-work-destroyingly interesting! It is sure to become the next source of wisdom quoted by players for a long time.

    Thank you in advance C&G!
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by qswanger on Oct 6th, 2010, 6:30am
    I'm salivating  :P
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by Fritzlein on Oct 6th, 2010, 7:29pm

    on 10/06/10 at 06:30:07, qswanger wrote:
    I'm salivating  :P

    You should be.  I have read the rough draft, and it is awesome!
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Oct 7th, 2010, 2:17am
    Haha, thanks :)
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Oct 7th, 2010, 7:18am

    on 10/06/10 at 04:12:29, rbarreira wrote:
    What does facing traps refer to?


    Like gold attacking f6 and silver attacking f3.
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by qswanger on Oct 19th, 2010, 3:54pm
    Still salivating.  

    I feel like I'm acting like my 5 year old right now -- "Are we there yet?"  :P
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by chessandgo on Oct 21st, 2010, 6:56am
    No, we're not :)

    Actually, if someone wants to help with the reviewing process, there're obviously welcome! I won't make any profit out of the book so I can't give you a cut though.

    Greg, Omar and a cousin of his already helped with the review (huge thanks to them!!!), but there's still like half of the manuscript that needs to be reviewed carefully.

    In any case, the book won't be released before 2011, and as I'll be writing my phd thesis in late 2010 and early 2011 that won't help.

    :)

    Jean
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by omar on Oct 21st, 2010, 12:31pm
    Eric (Nombril) has also agreed to help out, so Jean should be getting more feedback soon. I think the book is complete in terms of content; unless Jean wants to add any new things he has learned :-). Jean has also done a lot of work to prepare the figures. We mostly just need to proofread it now. The book is loaded with an amazing amount of knowledge and analysis. It is well worth the wait.
    Title: Re: english arimaa terminlogy
    Post by 722caasi on Oct 21st, 2010, 8:22pm
    I'd love to proofread it, and I imagine more eyes will always help. Could I?


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