Author |
Topic: Looking for tips on strategy (Read 3222 times) |
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Re: Looking for tips on strategy
« Reply #15 on: Mar 21st, 2006, 1:44pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Mar 20th, 2006, 7:48pm, Swynndla wrote:| I have a few questions if I may, and I have also suggested fixes for possible typos (although I'm not sure about the east-west ones, as sometimes you refer to the east wing as Silver's west wing, and this is a bit confusing for me). I didn't think you'd mind, Fritzlein, if I pointed these things out (along with my questions) in this forum rather than emailing you, so I hope I wont offend you. |
|
Thanks for the all questions, corrections, and suggestions. I'm happy to get any feedback whatsoever. It would be fine to edit the Wiki directly, or fine to send me e-mail, or fine to let me know when you see me in the chat room. Posting in the Forum is good too, since that encourages more people to give contradictory opinions.
I intend for east and west to be absolute directions as Omar's movement notation suggests. Silver's west wing should be the same side of the board as Gold's west wing. However, you may have noticed that I sometimes get confused....
Quote:| 5w: "Current opening theory suggests that it is bad to give up a horse hostage on a wing where the opposing game waits," ... do you mean the opposing camel waits? |
|
Right, I meant camel, thanks. Fixed.
Quote:| 5b: "A plausible alternative attack would have been to push Omar's e3 horse to d3, unbalancing Omar's forces by putting both horses on the same wing, but that wouldn't be to Omar's disadvantage unless Fritzlein switched wings with his camel as well." ... (italics mine) not clear ... do you mean that if both camels were on the opposite wing, then Gold's east wing would be weaker, and vulnerable to such things as a E-H attack (whereas with the camel waiting, the east side isn't weak for Gold, as the camel is there to defend ... and Silver's camel cannot increase the pressure on the east wing while Gold's elephant is there, or it'll be in danger of being taken hostage)? |
|
Ah, I can see how that is not clear. I mean that if Omar had both horses on the same wing it could be a disadvantage to him if I also got my camel on that wing. Since you don't want to launch an EH attack where the opposing camel waits, if you have both of your horses on the same wing as the opposing camel, you are sort of stuck attacking with the lone elephant instead of having the EH option as well. I tried to fix it: let me know if it still isn't clear.
Quote:| 8b: "Had Fritzlein taken the hostage, Omar would have defended c6 with his elephant, leading into a class of positions that is very poorly understood to this day. Opinion varies wildly both as to whether Gold or Silver would stand better in the resulting position, and as to what strategy each player should pursue." ... that surprised me, as I though it was an established fact that taking a H hostage with an E is disadvantageous - or is it only if a bot does it? |
|
Bots can be crushed on either side of the EH, although they are beaten more often defending it since very few are willing to launch it. The very first way I learned to beat Bomb (2004 version) was by taking a horse hostage with my elephant.
In human games there is a lot of unexplored territory surrounding horse play. One idea is for the elephant to hold the hostage horse on b5 instead of a6, keeping a defensive horse on b6. (Doesn't it just feel right to have one's horse on b6 rather than one's elephant?) Then the hostage-holding elephant is just as centralized as the defending elephant. If rabbit comes up to unfreeze the horse, then one can play against the rabbit rather than the horse. I guess the state of the art is to unfreeze the horse with a dog. I don't know what to do then: play against the dog?
A second idea is to frame the hostage horse. Adanac posted in another thread that framing a horse is a disadvantage to the framer if the defending elephant is on the correct side. That is to say if I frame Omar's horse on c6, Omar actually benefits from this as long as his elephant defends from d6. I respectfully disagree. Of course it depends on the configuration of the other pieces, but I think it is to the advantage of the framer more often than not. See the current Postal Tournament game Robinson vs. Ron Weasley for an extreme example of an advantageous horse frame. How to play with or against a framed horse is very much an open question.
A third idea is to take the horse hostage with the elephant only temporarily, with the idea of passing the horse off to one's camel. This can be quite slow if one's camel is on the other wing, and will probably result in the loss of at least a rabbit while it is taking place. However, a camel holding a horse hostage is sometimes worth more than a rabbit. See my most recent game against OLTI, game 26593, for an example. Of course, live games prove less about the soundness of a strategy than postal games do. Timing is everything in this type of game, and we also don't have a good understanding of the value of a camel holding a horse. I reference that game merely as an example of why it isn't a settled issue.
From replaying some of the PMertens' experimental games, my best guess is that the advantage/disadvantage of an elephant holding a horse hostage is between the advantage of pulling an opposing rabbit and the disadvantage of having your own own rabbit pulled. (One square of rabbit pull is the smallest unit of permanent strategic advantage) In other words, an elephant holding a horse hostage is an issue so finely balanced, it is usually trumped by rabbit pulls, never mind other, larger considerations.
* If you have an EH attack going and the other guy is about to take your horse hostage, usually break off the attack and pull his rabbit while you have the chance.
* If the other guy is about to pull your rabbit with his horse, usually be willing to decentralize your elephant to take his horse hostage to stop it.
* If you have a horse hostage with your elephant and the other guy pushes a rabbit to unfreeze it, push his horse back towards his side and get his rabbit in trouble instead.
* If you have a horse hostage and nothing else is happening you are probably marginally ahead because you can rotate your camel over and/or threaten a frame.
Quote:| 15w: "Fritzlein believes that the camel hostage will be worth more than a cat, and Omar thinks the cat will be worth more. The last word on this trade-off has not yet been written" ... again I'm surprised, as I thought that most people now say that a camel hostage is worth a dog? |
|
On the contrary, opinion is swinging the other way. It used to be that most people thought a camel hostage was worth more than a dog. My postal with Omar was just one of many games which moved popular opinion away from this valuation. Nowadays I am perhaps the only one left of the top players who, if forced to choose, would rather get a camel hostage while giving up a dog. Most other top players would prefer to capture a dog and give up their camel hostage in the process. Some, such as blue22 (Robinson? Omar?), will gladly give up a camel hostage for only a cat capture, but I guess that the median expert opinion is that a camel hostage is worth slightly more than a cat.
Quote:19w: "Omar takes advantage of the temporary misplacement of Fritzlein's pieces lauch an elephant-horse attack on f6." - missing word and also launch is misspelled --> "Omar takes advantage of the temporary misplacement of Fritzlein's pieces by launching an elephant-horse attack on f6." Also "effective" --> "effectively"
28b: "His own west wing is now too depleted to flip Omar's horse to b4 and launch a goal attack" --> "The east wing is now too depleted to flip Omar's horse to g4 and launch a goal attack" ... or words to that effect.
31b: "If Omar gets the camel hostage, Fritzlein might not get as much as cat in compensation like Omar did in the opening." --> "If Omar gets the camel hostage, Fritzlein might not get as much as a cat in compensation like Omar did in the opening."
41w: "He therefore launches the attack on c6 that he could have started on 40b." --> "He therefore launches the attack on c6 that he could have started on 40w."
45b: "Fritzlein decides has time to play the material game for one more move, time that his c7 dog buys him." --> "Fritzlein decides he has time to play the material game for one more move, time that his c7 dog buys him."
46b: "Fritzlein does the minimum to defend while pressing his western attack." --> "Fritzlein does the minimum to defend while pressing the eastern attack." ... or words to that effect.
48b: "and again calls into question Omar's refusing to offer it as a hostage on 45w." --> "and again calls into question Omar's refusing to offer it as a hostage on 43w." |
|
Fixed. Thanks. Sorry I'm so directionally challenged in my east-west orienation. 
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 21st, 2006, 1:55pm by Fritzlein » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Looking for tips on strategy
« Reply #16 on: Mar 21st, 2006, 2:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 20th, 2006, 10:34pm, Ryan_Cable wrote:| East and west are symmetric when gold is setting up so 1w only really has 32,432,400 possible moves. The 1b number is correct since gold’s setup always makes the board asymmetric. |
|
Fixed. Thanks.
Quote:| I think 22b ce6w ef5w eee5n rh8w would have been a better move. I think the game would then continue with 23w Ef7w Ee7w cd6w Ed7s 23b de8s de7e ee6s ee5e, which I think leads to a D frame or a trade of D for C. |
|
Wow, nice move. Not only did I not see it at the time, I didn't see it in any of my later analyses. That just goes to show how much is there to be seen. I have added your move to the commentary.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print