Listo de diskutaj forumoj
Vi ne rajtas afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo. La minimuma necesa nivelo de la membreco por afiŝi mesaĝojn en ĉi tiu forumo estas Brain-Peono.
Q: is it best to have two at diagonal or two together or does it not matter at the start?
My Answer: Ya know, I don't think the statistical advantages have been researched. I know that white has an ever-so-slight advantage over black when starting with the traditional diagonal position. The difference is about 0.12%. The non-traditional starting position, such as the one we're using in this game, is not allowed in most tournament play. In official reversi (othello) tournaments, the diagonal start position is already set and the first move is made from there. As far as I know, the option to change the starting position is found only on Goldtoken. Back to your question: As far as I can tell, there is no distinct statistical advantage for either player in starting one way over the other. I think this would be a great quesion for the reversi db, don't you think? I'll post it.
shmoula: I do not feel a need to defend myself against your accusations. Such accusations are frowned upon on this website, and these posts will be brought to the attention of the proper administrator. I will continue to play here and I wish everyone good luck in all their games.
Have fun!
John Baker
shmoula: That's funny... It's my understanding that the endgame is the easiest part of a game to play to perfection. In the endgame, the consequences of one's moves are much easier to determine than in the middle of the game. Given 10-20 empty squares left in a game, I think most players would be able to figure out how to most efficiently play it out. It would be hard, at this point, to make a mistake. If you are among those who would screw up an endgame after the game is already in your control, then you could probably gain something from asking questions, as a student would ask a teacher, rather than insinuating the ridiculous. If this is not the case, then redeem yourself by contribuing something of value to this discussion.
Just in case your motive was not to imply that I might be using a program to achieve my results, I apologize for my reaction and submit to you that such perfection in an endgame is not a rare thing.
I'd be happy to continue this discussion with you if you so wish.
John Baker
gborland: gborland, you are providing an excellent narrative! I'm trying to think of something to add, but you are summarizing the game very well. Does anybody have any questions about the games? Are there specific moves you'd like gborland or I to explain? We both had our own rational behind almost every move, so please don't hesitate to inquire about it if you are curious.
:-)
John Baker
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1414141
The non-traditional game isn't following any popular move sequence [anymore] that I know of. At this point (move 6), it's just a matter of setting up for later, the process for which changes with every move my opponent makes. I'll be trying to keep a minimum number of pieces on the board, so as to gain the advantage of the "powerful few." I'm assuming my worthy opponent will now be trying to do the same... should be interesting. :-)
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1414142
This game is following a popular move sequence for the time being. We're on move 5, and soon we will get to the point where our game becomes unique from any other reversi game ever played.
Luke Skywalker: What... You don't want to compare the timestamps on our posts to the timestamps on the moves? lol -jk Yeah, we'll refer to move numbers so others can look back and follow along.
John Baker
I sent the invitations. I'm black in one and white in the other. I also chose to make the games uncounted. I hope this doesn't make them invisible to other players. I don't think it will.
One of us will post links to the games once they're started. Let's start one with the standard (diagonal) opening and the other with the non-standard (parallel) opening.
Sound good?
Mr. Shumway: Actually, you had a good point. Since we'll be discussing the games as they are played, we'll be flirting with a violation of rules. I read somewhere that you're not supposed to discuss games in progress, since such discussions can give aid to one player. It might just be the safer route to play unrated games. Besides, I'm not doing this for the ratings. So anyway, let's get this underway. I'll make the invitations in a moment.
gborland: Sounds good. Would anyone be interested in watching and discussing the games? I'd hate to end up talking to the air. :-P
I know gborland and these games will go much faster.
It seems my effort to show some examples of strategies in the previously mentioned games isn't working as efficiently as I had hoped. At this rate, the games will take the next 6 months to complete. Are people still interested in watching a couple of games as they progress, and reading my commentary on the moves? If so, is there anyone who would like to play a couple of games that we would discuss on this board and hopefully learn from? I think I could learn something from the experience as well and it might be fun. :-)
Anyone?
John Baker
For those who would like to see another great example of my strategy at work, check out this game: http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1159134&i=5
The link takes you to the beginning of the game (standard opening), and you can click through the moves and see how it goes. I'd be willing to answer any questions about specific moves if you have them.
Props to nobody24 for providing such a great teaching tool. Thank you!
John Baker
Standard: http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1119548 Still following "normal" opening procedures. Nothing worth noting yet, unless someone else sees something I'm neglecting.
Straight: http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1119549 Hrqls is trying to minimize his pieces already. I haven't really thought about it yet. I'm just trying to make moves that don't capture too many at a time and give Hrqls plenty of opportunity to capture mine.
To those of you who are following along, I'm sorry the games are taking so long to get underway. Hopefully they'll speed up as we go. :-)
The games have reached the point where it starts to be worthwile to watch.
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1119548 This one is the standard or diagonal start. All moves available to Hrqls at this point (for move 3) are the same. It doesn't matter where he moves; my response will be the same. The next half dozen moves will probably follow standard published openings. I'll say something if we deviate.
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1119549 This one is the non-standard or straight start. I chose my starting move (move 3) simply because I find it easier to dominate by going diagonal, therefore I went straight, in hopes that Hrqls will take the diagonal and end up dominating (for now). ;-) I haven't had much luck finding published openings for this start, but the same concepts apply here as in the diagonal start.
Luke Skywalker: Since this board doesn't get that much use otherwise, I'll make the comments here and I'll try to remember to reference move numbers and which game I'm speaking of.
Hrqls: Yes, I suppose it doesn't matter much where the "few" are located. After using the strategy for a while you'll get a feel for where might be a good place to establish them in each game you play. Even when I play the same opponent over and over, I end up using different approaches each time, depending on how it shapes up.
Btw, let's make one game open standard (diagonal) and the other non-standard. It'll give those watching examples of each.
Hrqls: You're right, it's a lot easier in the second half. The first half is more about setting up for the second half. I try to keep a few internal pieces, while tempting my opponent to take the rest. Once they get a piece on a side, I'll "encourage" them to take the rest of it (except for the corners, of course). Although, every once in a while, I get a game where it's to my advantage to give them 1 or more corners. I'll do it if it means I get an entire side and the adjacent corner. Now I feel like I'm rambling. I'm looking forward to our games. I'll try to explain my moves as best I can.
Would anyone else in this board be interested in keeping track and following along?
John Baker
Hrqls: That was the phrase I used to describe the strategy which I find to work best for me. In a nutshell, it means allowing your opponent to dominate the board, while keeping your own pieces to a minimum. Once roughly 50% of the board is filled, you can severely limit your opponents options for moves because there are so few of your pieces to "convert" or "trap". The best example is a game in which my opponent has taken all the side spaces, but has left 4 empty spaces in a corner. If I can form a diagonal line with a piece in the space diagonal to the corner, and my opponent's only available moves are the two spaces adjacent to the corner, I will get the corner... And of course everything else will follow. If you look through my game history, I use this strategy in almost every game and it has done quite well for me. :-)
Invite me to a game for a firsthand lesson in it. I'll explain my moves as we go.
John Baker
BrainKing04: I consider myself to be a very good player. I am also a relatively fast player. Why don't you accept my invitations? You asked for a faster time limit, but you still won't accept my invitations. What does it take to play you?
How about overall game strategies? Some players try to dominate throughout the game, making moves that capture as many as possible every time. Others go for the edge spaces and work at gaining edge territory. Still others, like me, work at getting down to a "powerful few" with which we can control the moves of the opponent. What do you use?
gborland: IMO, the best thing to do is find something that works well for you most of the time. Once you find that, go back and try to commit to memory what you did and what it accomplished, so that in future games you can accomplish the same thing by using similar, if not the same, moves.
gborland: I don't have any current examples of the other opening, which I called "weak and uncommon," and I don't feel like digging through my archived games. It's the one where you get two parallel lines of 3 pieces.
gborland: Because of the way we're allowed to start here on BrainKing, we can get some non-traditional openings. My game http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=994572 is a good example of one of those. I have no suggestions for how to proceed in those situations.
Here are two examples of games where I had both of the more common openings, and they were played out fairly well. In each, the moves become non-standard by about move 5 or 6 (or 9-12, depending on how you're counting).
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=992113&i=8
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=992205&i=8
gborland: From what I've picked up, there are two pretty common openings, and the only other possibility is weak and uncommon. I don't know how to explain them here, other than suggesting you look at my games. I wish we could insert images here. :-)
I don't think players should have to acknowledge a pass move. It'd speed things up quite a bit if I could just make 8 (or however many) moves in a row without having to wait for my opponent to acknowledge the pass. Some players make 1 move per day, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you can imagine the frustration when it's a tournament game and everyone's waiting for one player to acknowledge the pass moves once a day. I'm not experiencing this right now, but it's happened quite a bit in the past.
Czuch Chuckers: Good point. In fact, it'd be a little spendy, but there could be a touch screen laying flat on the table between the opponents. Even better, it could be flush with the tabletop and look really snazzy! I can see it now... green felt tabletop with black leather around the edges...bright othello screen in the center, black and white pieces on a green board...bright light coming from spotlights in the ceiling...and an announcer. Yes! An announcer! This just keeps getting better and better...
How about randomly placed "wild" pieces? Those grey pieces could be randomly placed at the beginning of the game by the software (just a couple of them). Then, for the rest of the game, either player could use those pieces as their own. They'd never change status, always usable by either player. A grey located diagonal from the corner would definately add a significant aspect to the game. :-)
(kaŝi) Se vi volas esti ĉiam avertita pri la lasta afiŝo en forumo, vi povas ricevi la afiŝo jn en via novaĵ-kliento klakante la RSS-simbolon supre dekstre en ĉiu forumo. (pauloaguia) (Montri ĉiujn konsilojn)