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

        Arimaa >> General Discussion >> Playing 'over the board'.
        
(Message started by: knarl on Mar 29th, 2010, 6:24pm)
Title: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by knarl on Mar 29th, 2010, 6:24pm
Gday,

I was thinking about buying a nice chess set, mainly so I could set up arimaa postal positions to peruse in my living room (plus it would look neat on my coffee table).

I was just wondering if many people play on a physical board, and how practical they find it for planning moves. I'm afraid I've become adicted to the undo/redo buttons on the game client, and the expert mode to play out a few ply.

I'm thinking using a physical board will either force me to think more carefully and improve my game, or it will totally frustrate me, and I'll mix up all the pieces and forget the original position :-P.

Similarly, if you're playing someone face to face, what edicate do you use for planning moves?

Cheers,
knarl.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by FireBorn on Mar 29th, 2010, 7:02pm
Why not buy an Arimaa board? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4616/arimaa :)
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by knarl on Mar 29th, 2010, 7:28pm

on 03/29/10 at 19:02:36, FireBorn wrote:
Why not buy an Arimaa board? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4616/arimaa :)

Postage to Australia mainly. I could get a nice stone chess set for a similar price.

Reminds me of something I was going to ask though: Does anyone else really feel the urge to use the knights as horses? =)
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Eltripas on Mar 29th, 2010, 8:14pm

on 03/29/10 at 19:28:45, knarl wrote:
Reminds me of something I was going to ask though: Does anyone else really feel the urge to use the knights as horses? =)


Me. Specially because in Mexico, the chess knights are known as caballos (horses). So I don't find any sense using the caballos as perros and the torres as caballos when I can use the caballos as caballos.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 30th, 2010, 5:48am
I have no problems using a chess set to analyze postal positions.  At first I would have trouble remembering the starting position, and it was a pain to have to go back to the computer to make sure I was analyzing the right thing, but my memory improved over time.  Also the checkerboard pattern is irrelevant and distracting for Arimaa, but I got over that.

I never had any difficulty with using knights to represent cats.  All that matters is what can push what, and from my chess experience it was obvious.  The only negative side effect of using a chess set is how it affected my Arimaa commentary: sometimes I call the rabbits "pawns" or even call the elephant the "king" if I am not careful.

Note that I use a chess set for analysis even though I own an Arimaa set, because my chess set is larger, which works well with my large hands.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 30th, 2010, 5:50am

on 03/29/10 at 18:24:21, knarl wrote:
Similarly, if you're playing someone face to face, what edicate do you use for planning moves?

No planning on the board.  You touch, you move it.  You move it, it stays.  Any other rule is confusing and annoying.  The way I express it is, "Think with your mind, not with your hands!"
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Adanac on Mar 30th, 2010, 6:28am

on 03/29/10 at 20:14:56, Eltripas wrote:
Me. Specially because in Mexico, the chess knights are known as caballos (horses). So I don't find any sense using the caballos as perros and the torres as caballos when I can use the caballos as caballos.


I do that too.  It looks like a horse, so I use it as a horse in Arimaa.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by megajester on Mar 30th, 2010, 1:37pm
I'm like Fritz. I'm so used to rooks being worth more than knights, and since the different names in Arimaa are basically just a ranking system, I've always used rooks in place of horses. Though I've never consciously thought "rook = horse", just "rook is better than bishop, therefore rook pushes bishop."

Plus when trying to win converts I find it better to explain the rules first and the piece names later. To start explaining a "chess variant" to an already dubious person by talking about cats and dogs and bunnies doesn't help. :) "Normal piece values apply, except bishops outrank knights, ok?" is much easier...
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Eltripas on Mar 30th, 2010, 3:46pm

on 03/30/10 at 13:37:21, megajester wrote:
I'm like Fritz. I'm so used to rooks being worth more than knights, and since the different names in Arimaa are basically just a ranking system, I've always used rooks in place of horses. Though I've never consciously thought "rook = horse", just "rook is better than bishop, therefore rook pushes bishop."

Plus when trying to win converts I find it better to explain the rules first and the piece names later. To start explaining a "chess variant" to an already dubious person by talking about cats and dogs and bunnies doesn't help. :) "Normal piece values apply, except bishops outrank knights, ok?" is much easier...



when trying to win converts I find it better to explain the game as a totally separated game from chess, because I don't think that arimaa is a chess variant, and when I say the pieces names I don't like saying that the horses are not horses but the rooks are horses and the horses are not horses, simply make the horses horses, "Normal piece values apply, except horses outrank towers, ok?" is much easier...  
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 30th, 2010, 4:12pm

on 03/30/10 at 15:46:01, Eltripas wrote:
"Normal piece values apply, except horses outrank towers, ok" is much easier...

But rooks can push bishops?  Why?  Because a rook is stronger than a bishop in chess?  But a rook is stronger than a knight in chess, too....

As I teach you the game I will rely on your chess knowledge and then declare that your chess knowledge doesn't uniformly apply because...  well, because all of the pieces have other names too, which I wouldn't need to tell you in order to explain the game, but I will tell you those extra names so that you have two names for every piece (except the horse) because... it is simpler!  :P

Just kidding.  Instead I tell the chess players what can push what, and I don't bring the Arimaa piece names into it at all.  There is no confusion about a knight being a cat and a rook being a horse, because there are no cats and horses.  The pieces are one king, one queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights, and eight pawns.  The object of the game is to get a pawn to the other side, etc.

On the other hand, if it is your objective avoid giving the impression that Arimaa is a chess variant, then you might not want to explain how it can be played with a chess board and chess pieces at all!
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Eltripas on Mar 30th, 2010, 4:24pm

on 03/30/10 at 16:12:44, Fritzlein wrote:
But rooks can push bishops?  Why?  Because a rook is stronger than a bishop in chess?  But a rook is stronger than a knight in chess, too....

As I teach you the game I will rely on your chess knowledge and then declare that your chess knowledge doesn't uniformly apply because...  well, because all of the pieces have other names too, which I wouldn't need to tell you in order to explain the game, but I will tell you those extra names so that you have two names for every piece (except the horse) because... it is simpler!  :P

Just kidding.  Instead I tell the chess players what can push what, and I don't bring the Arimaa piece names into it at all.  There is no confusion about a knight being a cat and a rook being a horse, because there are no cats and horses.  The pieces are one king, one queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights, and eight pawns.  The object of the game is to get a pawn to the other side, etc.

On the other hand, if it is your objective avoid giving the impression that Arimaa is a chess variant, then you might not want to explain how it can be played with a chess board and chess pieces at all!


Do you really think arimaa is a chess variant?, If you teach  basketball with a soccer ball it doesn't becomes a soccer variant for that reason.

Also I still find much more logic to use the horse as a horse, maybe you don't because the knight is not called horse in english.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 30th, 2010, 4:27pm

on 03/30/10 at 16:24:42, Eltripas wrote:
Do you really think arimaa is chess variant?, If you teach  basketball with a soccer ball it doesn't becomes a soccer variant for that reason.

Oh, I see.  By analogy, if you taught basketball with a soccer ball, you would avoid the impression that it is a soccer variant by calling the soccer ball a basketball.  That would be less confusing for everyone.  ;-)


Quote:
Also I still find much more logic to use the horse as a horse, maybe you don't because the knight is not called horse in english.

I don't call the knight a cat, and I don't call the rook a horse, as I just explained.  That's why it isn't confusing.  Even if we had the same name for horse and for knight, I still think it would be easier to explain without imposing Arimaa names on all the chess pieces that already have names.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Eltripas on Mar 30th, 2010, 4:33pm

on 03/30/10 at 16:27:58, Fritzlein wrote:
Oh, I see.  By analogy, if you taught basketball with a soccer ball, you would avoid the impression that it is a soccer variant by calling the soccer ball a basketball.  That would be less confusing for everyone.  ;-)

I don't call the knight a cat, and I don't call the rook a horse, as I just explained.  That's why it isn't confusing.  Even if we had the same name for horse and for knight, I still think it would be easier to explain without imposing Arimaa names on all the chess pieces that already have names.


I would call the soccer ball just ball to avoid confusions if there were any.

And I don't change the names of the pieces when I explain the game with a chess set, just when I play I use the horses as horses.


Anyways you didn't answered my question about if you consider arimaa a chess variant or not?
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 30th, 2010, 4:45pm

on 03/30/10 at 16:33:12, Eltripas wrote:
And I don't change the names of the pieces when I explain the game with a chess set, just when I play I use the horses as horses.

Which is confusing because a rook can push a bishop, but a horse can push a rook.  If you never say that a king is an elephant and a queen is a camel, then there is no need for a horse to be a horse.


Quote:
Anyways you didn't answered my question about if you consider arimaa a chess variant or not?

I would classify Arimaa as a chess variant, but I'm not fussed if other people say it is not.  The similarities are superficial, and the differences in play are great.  But ultimately, people will tend to like both games or dislike both games for the same reasons.  I think they are very deeply similar in some ways, which is why the subtitle I chose for Beginning Arimaa was Chess Reborn Beyond Computer Comprehension.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Adanac on Mar 30th, 2010, 5:00pm

on 03/30/10 at 16:45:29, Fritzlein wrote:
Which is confusing because a rook can push a bishop, but a horse can push a rook.  If you never say that a king is an elephant and a queen is a camel, then there is no need for a horse to be a horse.


But chess players think of bishops & knights as being roughly equal in strength, so they still have to memorize 1 rule in your system so that they don't forget whether bishop is < or > knight.  

If you tell them that horse = knight then they have to memorize this 1 rule instead.  But now that leaves dog = rook & cat = bishop which is very intuitive.  The very first time I ever played Arimaa was with a chess board and I played one game each with my wife and 1 with my brother.  None of us had any difficulty remembering the order of strength of the pieces and I always liked the intuitive simplicity of horse = knight.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Eltripas on Mar 30th, 2010, 5:00pm

on 03/30/10 at 16:45:29, Fritzlein wrote:
Which is confusing because a rook can push a bishop, but a horse can push a rook.  If you never say that a king is an elephant and a queen is a camel, then there is no need for a horse to be a horse.


Maybe is confusing for you but when I once tried to teach a friend saying that the bishop could push the horse, he complained saying he didn't considered the bishop better or more powerful to the knight.

And you may ask "and he didn't complained when you said the horse could push the rook when the rook is more powerful?" and I answer yes he complained too but then I said that the third piece in rank in the original pieces was a horse also, and he stopped complaining.

Ha, I made this post without realizing that Adanac made previous post with a similar topic.

Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 30th, 2010, 8:11pm
That's a good point that the chess order of pieces isn't exactly clear between bishop and knight.  Also I heard one chess player complain that it isn't clear between king and queen, since the queen is more powerful than a king.  So in some sense either order between king and queen would be fine, and any order of rook, bishop, and knight would be fine.

Still, I think that if you asked chess players to come up with an ordering themselves of what could push what, the king-queen-rook-bishop-knight-pawn ordering would be by far the most common.  Furthermore, if they played by that ordering on chess sets for a year, and then came to play on the Arimaa site for the first time, and had to guess what could push what on Arimaa, they would have no trouble intuiting that horses could push dogs around even though they had been using bishops to push horses around on a chess board.

Yes, I can understand if Arimaa players feel it is less confusing to themselves to use a knight to represent a horse.  To me it seems quite a stretch to claim that using a knight to represent a horse make the game easier to explain to someone who knows chess, who has never played Arimaa before, and who will start his career on a chess board.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Eltripas on Mar 30th, 2010, 9:40pm

on 03/30/10 at 20:11:30, Fritzlein wrote:
Yes, I can understand if Arimaa players feel it is less confusing to themselves to use a knight to represent a horse.  To me it seems quite a stretch to claim that using a knight to represent a horse make the game easier to explain to someone who knows chess, who has never played Arimaa before, and who will start his career on a chess board.


I guess I can agree with this.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Hirocon on Mar 30th, 2010, 10:18pm
I've never played Arimaa on a chess board, but if I did, I think the least confusing method for both old and new players is this: taller pieces push shorter pieces.  So (with most piece sets) kings push queens push bishops push knights push rooks push pawns.  This doesn't correspond to any normal piece ordering in chess, but it is nevertheless easy to remember and easy to visualize.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by FireBorn on Mar 30th, 2010, 11:12pm

on 03/30/10 at 22:18:54, Hirocon wrote:
I've never played Arimaa on a chess board, but if I did, I think the least confusing method for both old and new players is this: taller pieces push shorter pieces.  So (with most piece sets) kings push queens push bishops push knights push rooks push pawns.  This doesn't correspond to any normal piece ordering in chess, but it is nevertheless easy to remember and easy to visualize.

Yes, this is how I taught it to my sister and her fiance
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Adanac on Mar 31st, 2010, 2:54am

on 03/30/10 at 20:11:30, Fritzlein wrote:
Yes, I can understand if Arimaa players feel it is less confusing to themselves to use a knight to represent a horse.  To me it seems quite a stretch to claim that using a knight to represent a horse make the game easier to explain to someone who knows chess, who has never played Arimaa before, and who will start his career on a chess board.


I found it quite easy to grasp that Knight = Horse = third strongest piece even in my first game of Arimaa.  Learn that 1 rule and everything else becomes intuitive to a chess player.  Knight = Horse seemed obvious to me and it has the advantage of eliminating the strength of bishop vs. knight confusion that some chess players will have.

I now think that Hirocon's suggestion is the most intuitive for new players.  It's easy to explain that tall pieces push short pieces without exceptions.   If I ever teach Arimaa with a chess set again, I might try the height method.  I can get over my hangup that the Knight must be the Horse.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 31st, 2010, 5:31am

on 03/30/10 at 22:18:54, Hirocon wrote:
I've never played Arimaa on a chess board, but if I did, I think the least confusing method for both old and new players is this: taller pieces push shorter pieces.  So (with most piece sets) kings push queens push bishops push knights push rooks push pawns.  This doesn't correspond to any normal piece ordering in chess, but it is nevertheless easy to remember and easy to visualize.

Nice!  So now there are three competing orderings:
king-queen-rook-bishop-knight-pawn
king-queen-knight-rook-bishop-pawn
king-queen-bishop-knight-rook-pawn

But only one of them can be explained in a single rule, namely the last with "taller pushes shorter".  I think you're on to something, Hirocon.
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by nycavri on Mar 31st, 2010, 11:11am
I think this thread is a conspiracy to sell Z-Man Arimaa sets!  

[Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .]
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by megajester on Mar 31st, 2010, 12:43pm

on 03/31/10 at 11:11:17, nycavri wrote:
I think this thread is a conspiracy to sell Z-Man Arimaa sets!  

[Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .]

Mwahahaa

http://stratfordcharter.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/sockpuppet.jpg

"Ur busted, sockpuppet!"

I love this "[img]" thingy!
Title: Re: Playing 'over the board'.
Post by omar on Mar 31st, 2010, 12:53pm
Hirocon, I like the idea you proposed of using height of the chess piece to determine the rank. I was looking at images of the chess pieces and it does seem that in most chess sets the height does follow the order you gave. I think it would make it very intuitive to use height when using a chess set. I'll change the main page to recommend this.

http://www.chessusa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=YMCG&Category_Code=EBCP


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