Author |
Topic: 2015 Move 1 (Read 5142 times) |
|
browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender: 
Posts: 384
|
 |
Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #15 on: Jun 23rd, 2015, 10:51am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I don't think style of play is really a choice. We should try to play the best moves. I generally play aggressively because I think that it is the best course of action. You will also see me play less aggressive lines of play when I think they are called for.
My point is that I think discussing how aggressive we should be is counter-productive.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
deep_blue
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #9854
Posts: 212
|
|
Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #16 on: Jun 23rd, 2015, 2:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Lightvector mentioned that he can't guarantee that he doesn't accidentially reads our discussions when done in the chat. So how about another chat like this: http://chatwing.com/noreply-818
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
half_integer
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #8819
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #17 on: Jun 24th, 2015, 6:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
This discussion seems to be winding down, and I have only seen 4 real suggestions: 99of9 with either dogs or cats at the traps, and the two setups proposed by browni. So maybe it is time for a poll. I would suggest that we first decide between generic 99of9 and asymmetric, and then have a second poll to select the exact setup from the winning class.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #18 on: Jun 24th, 2015, 9:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 20th, 2015, 5:58pm, half_integer wrote:Harvestsnow's post prompts discussion of another related voting topic: In a vote where there are more than two choices, it may be the case that no choice receives a majority of the votes (a tie is a special case of this). I suggest that we should not merely take the move with the highest number of votes, but ensure that each move made has the approval of the majority of voters.
The simplest way to do this is, whenever there is a tie or lack of a majority, the two most popular options are kept and a poll between them alone is taken. |
|
on Jun 24th, 2015, 6:30am, half_integer wrote:| This discussion seems to be winding down, and I have only seen 4 real suggestions: 99of9 with either dogs or cats at the traps, and the two setups proposed by browni. So maybe it is time for a poll. I would suggest that we first decide between generic 99of9 and asymmetric, and then have a second poll to select the exact setup from the winning class. |
|
These posts suggest that you're not aware that the whole idea of using a Condorcet voting method (like Schulze) is that it allows people to submit full and honest rankings of all the candidates in order of their preferences, with relatively little fear of having to be tactical about it. I would advise, after each vote, to only possibly consider having another round of discussion and voting in case there is no Condorcet winner.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
deep_blue
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #9854
Posts: 212
|
|
Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #19 on: Jun 25th, 2015, 4:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Are there any other suggestions for setup? I will start the setup vote after the time control vote finished.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
harvestsnow
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 88
|
|
Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #20 on: Jun 25th, 2015, 8:23pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I don't see how ordering preferences between "more/less than 7 days" and "more/less than 21 days of reserve" makes sense. These options are not exclusive. Is the preference system supposed to work in these conditions?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
deep_blue
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #9854
Posts: 212
|
|
Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #21 on: Jun 26th, 2015, 4:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
Well, when you like two of those you simply give good numbers for two of them and low numbers for rest.
If you think 7d is too short you DON'T vote for uncapped reserve or so even if you like I guess (or you vote it as 3rd choice then) because that one includes 7d. If more than 7d would win we would then need to discuss how much time instead.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 26th, 2015, 4:25am by deep_blue » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
deep_blue
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #9854
Posts: 212
|
|
Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #22 on: Jun 26th, 2015, 5:33am » |
Quote Modify
|
I suggest that for now we move the discussions to the old One vs. Mob forum boards.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
arimaa_master
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2010
Gender:
Posts: 358
|
|
Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #23 on: Jun 26th, 2015, 5:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 26th, 2015, 5:33am, deep_blue wrote:| I suggest that for now we move the discussions to the old One vs. Mob forum boards. |
|
+1
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
clyring
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #6218
Gender: 
Posts: 359
|
|
Re: **2015 move 1**
« Reply #24 on: Jun 26th, 2015, 6:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
I have no objections to this thread being moved there or to threads for subsequent moves being started there. However, if we relocate our discussions to one of the older mob sections we should very clearly label all mob-sharp threads as '2015 move X' to limit possible confusion with the older discussions.
EDIT:
on Jun 25th, 2015, 4:10pm, deep_blue wrote:| Are there any other suggestions for setup? I will start the setup vote after the time control vote finished. |
|
I reject starting voting on the setup before the game actually starts.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 26th, 2015, 6:37am by clyring » |
IP Logged |
I administer the Endless Endgame Event (EEE). Players welcome!
|
|
|
deep_blue
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #9854
Posts: 212
|
|
Re: **2015 move 1**
« Reply #25 on: Jun 26th, 2015, 7:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 26th, 2015, 6:35am, clyring wrote:| I have no objections to this thread being moved there or to threads for subsequent moves being started there. However, if we relocate our discussions to one of the older mob sections we should very clearly label all mob-sharp threads as '2015 move X' to limit possible confusion with the older discussions. |
|
Good point, I will keep that in mind.
Quote:
EDIT:
I reject starting voting on the setup before the game actually starts. |
|
Agreed, but after the time control poll is over we WILL start the game.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
clyring
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #6218
Gender:
Posts: 359
|
|
2Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #26 on: Jun 29th, 2015, 7:21am » |
Quote Modify
|
Now that the game has actually started there is some urgency to this discussion. I note that the talk so far has been rather thin. While I understand this for the 99of9 variants, I think we should further discuss our options, especially browni's more unusual proposal RHCEMRCH/RRRDDRRR, which has not seen much testing in human practice as far as I am aware.
I'm going to label our four main proposals so far as follows:
(A) RHCEMCHR/RRRDDRRR (99of9, 99of9 cats forward)
(B) RHDEMDHR/RRRCCRRR (99of9 dogs forward)
(C) HMDEDCHR/RRCRRRRR (browni setup)
(D) RHCEMRCH/RRRDDRRR (h-horse setup)
Under which circumstances are we likely to not want to advance a horse in the east using setup (D)?- Silver setting up with mh in the east. This seems the clearest case of our horse not wanting to directly attack, but then we have still gained time relative to the 99of9 if our response in either case is to slide our camel and horse over to match.
- Silver setting up with m in the west and hh in the east. This would certainly limit our horse's ability to achieve an attacking position in the east, but seems better than we could hope for with the 99of9 against an ehh setup as our camel is already on the right wing.
More generally the horse on the h-file only ever seems misplaced if our camel is not coming east soon. We could just set up our camel on the g-file to start with (D*), which would lead to something similar to (C), leading me to the conclusion that the two setups are quite closely related and the critical tries against each are those in which the camel might wish to leave its native wing early, rather than those in which the horse might think twice about advancing early. Generally with the elephant and camel a net three steps further from the preferred flank in (D) than (C) it will be much harder to apply immediate pressure on the preferred flank but easier to pursue an alternative plan in the former setup.
There are two broad categories of responses to the browni proposals that I consider interesting:
- Variants on ehh/m with the camel as a primary defender of the eastern wing. Due to the limited ability of the two horses to quickly generate threats of their own on the opposite wing, against (C) browni has previously placed one of the horses centrally to aid in the initial defense of c6 which seems to come under too much pressure early on otherwise. Against (D) the central horse probably isn't immediately necessary but has its own implications more similar to an ehh/m setup against a 99of9 setup. (D*) mentioned above to illustrate the relationship between (C) and (D) I don't think is as strong as either (C) or (D) against this flavor of setup as gold is significantly less well equipped to either apply pressure or switch gears.
- Setups intending a counterattack on the other wing with mh. I admit I haven't seen many other players take this approach but it is my preferred response to (C) and similar setups, potentially leading to nearly symmetrical arrangements of the camels and horses, but with both elephants on gold's camel wing, which only needs to be worth two steps. However, due to the centralized camel, I think this idea probably holds less substance against (D). Unfortunately I don't have a particularly nice example game. The three I could quickly dig up: 1 2 3
Let the dissent begin! 
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 29th, 2015, 7:25am by clyring » |
IP Logged |
I administer the Endless Endgame Event (EEE). Players welcome!
|
|
|
deep_blue
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #9854
Posts: 212
|
|
Re: 2015 Move 1
« Reply #27 on: Jun 29th, 2015, 9:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
I wonder why even people like browni who strongly favor that setup still used 99of9 in some of the world championship games. I still think a standard setup has the advantage of more players being comfortable with it but then again some of the browni setup arguments sound convincing so I am open for that too.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 29th, 2015, 9:31am by deep_blue » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
deep_blue
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #9854
Posts: 212
|
|
Re: 2Re: Mob game 1g
« Reply #28 on: Jun 29th, 2015, 6:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 29th, 2015, 7:21am, clyring wrote:
(D) RHCEMRCH/RRRDDRRR (h-horse setup)
Under which circumstances are we likely to not want to advance a horse in the east using setup (D)?
- Silver setting up with m in the west and hh in the east. This would certainly limit our horse's ability to achieve an attacking position in the east, but seems better than we could hope for with the 99of9 against an ehh setup as our camel is already on the right wing.
|
|
What about m in the east and hh in the west? This looks better than a ehh attack vs. the 99of9 IMO. (because of the slightly misplaced H). So the only way to play for a better position is playing MH vs. m then but does this really give fast attacking chances (since getting M to g3 also costs time)?
EDIT: Btw, even browni said he was not sure if he would vote for his setup.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 29th, 2015, 7:53pm by deep_blue » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Algorias
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #9646
Gender:
Posts: 14
|
|
Re: 2015 Move 1
« Reply #29 on: Jun 30th, 2015, 5:00am » |
Quote Modify
|
I wonder whether we are attempting to play the best game possible against a versatile and strong opponent, or trying to exploit sharp's specific weaknesses. From the discussion here, the former seems to be the case. I think we should seriously consider the alternative, however.
In my opinion, sharp is weakest in nonstandard situations. For example, after an even camel trade, it stays strong tactically but flounders about strategically. Consider c&g game 3 of the 2015 challenge match:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/opengamewin.cgi?client=1&role=v&am p;side=w&gameid=422656
Here, sharp is lured into a strange position with an early advanced elephant (move 4s), followed by a short maneuver resulting in the exchange of camels. At this point, sharp starts playing significantly worse, bleeding 4 minor pieces over the next 25 or so moves. This was one of 2 the games won by the human side, and it was a brutal bot-bashing that makes sharp look very stupid, specially in the context of it just having swept the challenge match.
This might have of course been fixed by lightvector in the meantime, and maybe he would consider some move in that sequence a significant enough blunder to intervene (he has a lot of leeway on how to interpret the agreed upon rules). A deliberate baiting strategy of this kind is therefore somewhat risky. We also don't know to what extend sharp's 2 minute play predicts its one week play.
With that said, I still propose that we work out a starting setup geared specifically to achieve an early camel trade, be that 99of9 as in the example game or something different, and add it to the poll options.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print