HexWiki is back Hex, Havannah

96 replies. Last post: 2017-04-03

Reply to this topic Return to forum

HexWiki is back
  • Tommah at 2015-08-23

    Scrampy and I have a new HexWiki running at http://hexwiki.amecy.com .  It is running based on a backup of the old HexWiki’s database from two years ago.

    Let me know if something isn’t working right.  The user accounts are still on there, but you might have to do a password reset before you can log in.

  • scrampy at 2015-08-23

    Tommah is the real hero here.  Without his newly developed code to render the old diagrams properly, as well as a newly developed, easy to use diagram editor, we wouldn’t be where we are today. 
    There is a lot if information that has been shared amongst some very intelligent people in these forums on many aspects of Hex. Please take a look through the wiki, as there is a lot of great content there that would benefit from:
    1 – explanatory diagrams2 – updating to current thought (especially around openings, swap guidelines, etc.) 3 – clarification on whether some thought applies only to 10 can 10
    I am a weak beginner,  so though I am putting my efforts into bringing old content from the Internet Archive online, reaching out to former content creators to ask if they will agree to make what they had created available on the wiki, etc.,  I can’t do some of the more important work of correcting,  clarifying and writing new content. 
    I hope that we can use the new site as a means for bringing this great game to more people. 

  • z at 2015-08-24

    Thank you both for the hard work! The new board editor is particularly useful.

  • Giupiter at 2015-08-24

    Great job! And it seems working very right Tommah: thank you very much guys! 

  • JKB at 2015-08-25

    Thank you both very much! Hope, that it will develop and grow. I will find time to edit it, but I’m not so good in Hex :)

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2015-08-25

    Thank you both! I will be happy to contribute! If there are any unobvious rules according to adding new stuff to HexWiki please inform me here :) Actually I have already added a new subject under the page of Strategy. It is called “Josekis” and is about corner-play.

    I think the theory of “corner-play” is an innovation. Me and lazyplayer have found a lot during last couple of years. I posted just my interpretation of our findings, but I hope lazyplayer would share my perspective... Anyway, everybody can feel free to edit :)

  • Tommah at 2015-08-27

    Thanks, Arek!  We don’t really have any rules yet; if we do set rules, we will post them prominently.

  • Tommah at 2015-08-27

    (Well, we do have the rules about copyright, which you can see on the edit pages.  That’s all for now.)

  • Tom Ace at 2015-08-27

    Thanks for bringing the wiki back!

  • Tommah at 2015-09-21

    Spambots have discovered the wiki, so I had to disable automatic account creation.  Instead, now when you fill out the form to receive an account, you must wait for me to approve you.  Please let me know if you have trouble making an account.

  • Tommah at 2016-08-27

    Well, the new HexWiki has been up for a year so far, and it seems to be running smoothly.  It receives a few edits now and then.  Feel free to contribute your own material.

  • Rex Moore at 2016-08-30

    I am very appreciative of the wiki. Thank you!

  • Tommah at 2016-12-17

    I discovered today that HexWiki was not sending out emails.  I believe the problem started this month or last month, when Mailgun changed their requirements about validating accounts.  I have reconfigured things, and emailing should work now.  If you recently tried to sign up for an account and received an error, please try again now.

  • scrampy at 2017-01-19

    Congratulations on the anniversary!

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-02-22

    I’ve made some more contribution by adding:

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Peeps

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Forcing_moves

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Tenuki

    and editing my old article

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Josekis

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-02-22

    Sorry, I’ve just found that a better term for a peep is “nozoki” to be consistent with japanese terminology I borrow from Go.

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Nozoki

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Forcing_moves

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Tenuki

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Josekis

  • lazyplayer at 2017-02-22

    Arek, B6 is red win in the last diagram, no? :D

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-02-22

    I am open to hear suggestions for how to mark colour of the edges.

    In my examples, there is a notice:
    In all following examples red edges are vertical ones and blue edges are horizontal ones.

  • Tom Ace at 2017-02-22

    There should be no need to add notices like that to clarify; code on the wiki’s server that renders the board should color the edges.   I am available to do coding if the people maintaining the wiki are swamped--just let me know.   


  • lazyplayer at 2017-02-23

    Tom, i would love to have the board edges colored... perhaps it’s just because i’m used to it...

  • Tommah at 2017-02-28

    @Tom Ace: You’re welcome to help with the coding.  The site runs on stock MediaWiki.  The board is drawn by a plugin that I wrote, because we didn’t get the old board code from the owner of the old site.  When I have time, I’ll put my custom code in a GitHub repository and I can give you access.

    I think one of the introductory pages states that Red is the vertical player in every diagram.

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-01

    is “vertical player” the one who’s edges are vertical or horizontal?

  • Dvd Avins at 2017-03-02

    The one trying to connect vertically.

  • Tommah at 2017-03-03

    @Arek: I meant “vertical player” in the sense that Dvd says.  However, I will add a note to the wiki, as I now see how that might be confusing.

  • Tom Ace at 2017-03-08

    I’m working on code for the wiki to render diagrams with colored edges (thanks to Tommah for being open to letting me help).  I’m rendering boards with SVG which is supported in pretty much all browsers nowadays — but I’m looking to test as much as possible before going live.  I have a sample hex board in SVG at http://minortriad.com/hex96.html which anyone can look at.  If it doesn’t render well, please let me know — thanks!

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-09

    Tom, looks perfect in my browser (Firefox, Linux).

    I like that edges are colored but minimally, and i also like the high contrast of colors (red, blue, white).

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-10

    Great job!

  • HappyHippo at 2017-03-15

    Looks good!

  • Tommah at 2017-03-15

    Yes, Tom Ace did a good job with that.  I am going to add his code to HexWiki soon, probably sometime this week.

  • Tommah at 2017-03-17

    Tom Ace’s new board code is on the site!  It looks very nice.  Please let us know if you spot any problems.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-18

    Tom, thanks for your efforts!

    I’ve been reading some of this: http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Niall_vs_Daniel_Sepczuk_-_Dec_2011

    First of all, thank Niall for posting this commentary.

    Second, suggestion for Tom, why not make “tip” box appears when mouse is over a cell, showing that cell coordinates.

    Third, big problem, we need something great to display trees of variations...

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-19

    Let me say this. While coordinates are needed, they’re a last resort thing.

    Without visualization, most of us (including me) are completely lost.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-19

    Another idea, we also need a label for each image, so that the text can refer to specific images.

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-19

    I had to switch blue and red in all my images and comments in the Nozoki page, but now hopefully it makes sense ;)

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Nozoki

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-19

    Arek, I like the page on Nozoki, but... why not call it “peep”? We need names we can remember! :)

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-19

    Also actually someone has already written a system for storing commented games with variations!

    http://www.hexmaster.net/

    This should definitely be integrated into Hexwiki...

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-19

    Lazyplayer,  I think english is good for talking but terrible for heuristic. “Peep” is both noun and verb, it has other undesirable meanings and moreover it sounds stupid ;)

    Nozoki is coherent with other terms we borrow from Go and I suspect that we will borrow more in future.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-20

    Well, my point was that, in general, I prefer English terms.

    I’ve also had few ideas on how to improve look of hexwiki.

    Have this as the icon of the website: http://hexwiki.amecy.com/images/hexwiki.png

    And have (a copy of) this: http://www.trmph.com/img/hexboard11.png instead of http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/File:Hexposition02.jpg in the home page!

    Indeed when I’ve time I’ll write something on why the board as we usually see it is the best representation... :)

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-20

    Or we could have this in home page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game)#/media/File:Hex-board-11x11-(2).jpg

    Yes it’s not a realistic game, nor is it a beautiful virtual wooden board, but it “explains” the rules of the game in just one image! :D

  • ypercube at 2017-03-20

    I’m with lazyplayer on this one.

    Frankly – and this may upset Go players – the whole Nozoki, Tunaki, Tsunami, ... terms sound completely gibberish to me.

    I see no reason – and that’s my personal opinion – to borrow Go/Japanese terms for Hex when we talk in English.

  • Marius Halsor at 2017-03-20

    I absolutely agree with Lazy and Yper: English should be the preferred language for Hex terms.

  • Tasmanian Devil at 2017-03-20

    “Peep” is commonly used in Go despite the common use of Japanese terms, and it seems reasonable to use it in Hex as well.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-20

    Another thing we’ve to settle is what to do with the strategy guides there in hexwiki.

    Either we keep them as they are, according to original author, or we freely modify them. But we’ve to decide.

    For example I think i’ve already modified years ago the Basic strategy page to include an interesting point:

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Basic_(strategy_guide)#Blocking_moves

    Yet this was not in the original guide, so... if i create a new strategy guide, i take it back and transfer this to mine?

    What do we do?

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-20

    The thing is, each of us think about hex in different way, even if we usually reach same conclusions (at least for the tractable positions). So it makes sense to have different strategy guides for different authors/teams. But on the other hand, we also need to “share” content and terminology as much as possible, to avoid duplication of efforts.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-20

    Ehehe, now i remember the story of that piece I’ve added there. i did so because i was tired that everyone was playing the “classic block” vs me on IGG. So i decided to go there and downplay “classic block” and promote different way of thinking that emphasizes more the whole board.

    So in summary, i freely admit that my addition there doesn’t fit at all with the rest. Yet the same content has to go somewhere.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-20

    Maybe we should do like them: http://senseis.xmp.net/?PagesForBeginners

    If we adopt something like this, then no strategy guides by this guy or that guy, but something in the same style as wikipedia.

  • Kerry Handscomb at 2017-03-20

    I’ve had a good look at the HexWiki. This is an amazing document, and thanks to all who had a hand in it. After many years of resisting, I’ve finally signed up for some games of Hex because of it.

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-20

    The point of using a foreign language for names is to avoid ambiguity and it works.

    As soon as somebody comes up with english terms for all: nozoki, tenuki, joseki... terms that are absolutely unambiguous!... then I agree we should use english.

    It takes some bravery to invent names and try to impose them! :)

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-20

    Kerry, you’re welcome, but i’ve to warn you that the advices on hexwiki could be much better.

    Here are my advices for you:

    1) start with small boards (11x11 before 13x13) 

    2) always play black D5 or symmetrical equivalents one or two times per game regardless of anything else!

    Advice 2 however stupid it may seem is what you actually need to have decent start of the game.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-20

    Well, thanks to Arek, we’ve a minimal introduction to this topic in hexwiki too: http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Joseki#5th_line_josekis 

    Using the terminology there, what you really need is Joseki C1, C2, C3, C4, D, E, F1, F2

    You would benefit with some familiarity with these too: http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Joseki#4th_line_josekis A1, A2, B, C, D

    These, combined with the obvious idea of playing near the center, should give you the basics of how to play.

    Hexwiki guides instead tend to have a different point of view, they discuss how to locally fight stones with stones, instead of how to set up the initial positions. It’s not a bad point of view but you can’t use it from the start. It’s like trying to explain chess with reference only to checkmates. Naturally checkmates are important but you don’t see checkmates until the very end.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-20

    Some more advices that aren’t yet found in hexwiki:

    take a look at “Bridge templates” here: http://www.drking.org.uk/hexagons/hex/templates.html

    broadly speaking, you’ve to try to make these appear in the board as you play a game.

    Also, you should welcome these patterns: http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#19,i7s19g8s18h10r19o11s17n14r18e17q19h17

    They’re not yet connected but they’re easy to connect (they’re 1 move away from a connection).

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-21

    I’ve updated the initial section of Strategy page on Hexwiki. Feedbacks welcomed.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-21

    I’ve also made significant edits on Rules, Swap rule, and the Home page. I hope I’ve made them less verbose and more interesting.

    I hope you like the new Home page. The pictures are there because I had them at hand and they seem to me amusing and pleasant.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-21

    Checklist of what has to be done in my opinion:

    1) Give an icon to the website!

    2) We need to be able to hide irrelevant cells, because things like this are unacceptably ugly:

    http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Advanced_(strategy_guide)#Template_Vb

    3) We need hex boards to “float” on at the right of text, so that it’s possible to read both text and look at the board.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-21

    I’ve forgot one:

    4) Disable tool tip when mouse is over hex boards

  • Kerry Handscomb at 2017-03-21

    lazyplayer, thank you for your advice!

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-21

    Thanks lazyplayer, strategy page looks really clean now.

    However, as opposed to the “checklist for beginners”, I support reinventing the wheel for the sake of deep understanding!

  • Tommah at 2017-03-21

    @lazyplayer:  Put your list somewhere on the wiki.  I have some things to add.

    Any ideas for the favicon?

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-22

    Tommah, http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/About_HexWiki

    It’s also linked from the home page, so people will see it :D

    Arek, well, that advice is on how to win, and not how to manipulate people into working for us :D

    Most important change in that section (was called “general advices”, now “checklist for beginner”) is that i hope I’ve restored symmetry between attack and defense. I think there is only one asymmetry, that attacker has one move less on the board. But once one learns to take into account for this (with the method specified here, by studying colors separately) then everything should be fine. Well, at least I hope so.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-22

    By “attacker” i mean, the one with the right to move. Let me re-state my point in clearer way: I think the only advantage of looking at the board as if the opponent wants to connect and we want to block is that, when it is our turn, the opponent has one additional stone on the board. If we take a “defensive” point of view like this, we do have to defend against ALL possible next move by opponent. But on the other hand, if we take an “offensive” point of view, then we do have to find a win for the player with fewer stones on the board, it is true, but we only need to find ONE of these. In my opinion, “offensive” point of view is at least as valid as “defensive” point of view.

  • richyfourtytwo at 2017-03-22

    While the symmetry between attack and defense is obvious from a mathematical point of view, I am not sure if the same is true from a learning point of view. I clearly remember that 'don’t try too hard to connect, just try to hinder your opponent from connecting' did help me a lot as a total beginner. (By now I am thinking more symmetrically again. But I’m not a total beginner anymore I hope.) It’s just a psychological thing I guess, and it may be very subjective of course.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-22

    richy, in fact in an early revision of the hexwiki advices i had tried to make a distinction between the start of the game, where one has to be careful to not confuse himself into thinking that one trivial win is at hand, and the later stages where indeed trivial wins are there to be found. i think in this sense defensive is good at the begin and it’s probably due to this reason that it seems to make sense psychologically. But this is difficult to pin down without going into a circular argument! Because length of the game is defined according to perfect play, and one doesn’t receive a message like “hey, game is about to end (under perfect play), please look for winning combination now”!

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-22

    Ironically, the beauty of the current formulation (“Strengthen/[weaken] your/[his] potential [winning] combinations”) is that it’s vague on this point. It doesn’t say if you have to strengthen just the one or two obvious winning paths or the millions of possible paths. And so it’s always correct in every stage of the game... :)

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-22

    From a pragmatic point of view, i think we can say this. This idea of playing “defensive” in some (unspecified) sense is already in the 3 guides (out of 3) that we’ve in Hexwiki (and for David Boll’s FAQ, I’m the one that has copied/pasted it there). There is no urgent need to repeat this questionable advice at the top of the strategy page.

  • Tommah at 2017-03-22

    This weekend I will try to add a forum to the wiki, so that we don’t have to monopolize LG’s forum  :)

    Also, I have registered hexwiki.net and have pointed it at the wiki.  Let’s use that domain from now on; it is more dignified than hexwiki.amecy.com (but I’ll keep this domain active too).

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-23

    richy, i’ve tried to reinsert the concept of game length and “defensive” play in the checklist. i hope this is as clear as it can be.

    naturally we would also need more figures and examples to really explain what we’re trying to say there, but this would require another “guide”...

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-23

    "Hex is not like a race toward a goal; it’s like proving a theorem in small steps."

    I hope you guys like this. I really can’t find a way to explain the “defensive” point than without a silly analogy (and anti-analogy) like this!

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-23

    Here is what I think.

    In a defensive approach we look more at opposition stones.

    In an offensive approach we look more at our own stones.

    The objective of defensive approach is to avoid losing. If we succeed then all of a sudden we win.

    The objective of offensive approach is to attain a win as quick as possible. In the meantime we might, all of a sudden, lose.

    Now I see a big difference between the two. The attacking way one can repeat and make principles to play accordingly. In defence one will always be dependant on opposition play so principles are harder to define.

    In my play I use offensive approach for 90% of the effort.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-23

    Arek, for me it’s like 75% of effort is offensive and 25% defensive. But it also depends on how much respect I’ve for opponent and his play. When i think he is playing very poor, my brain simply refuses to look for his win, because i “know” there is none. On the other hand when I think he is totally winning, then it’s more or less 50%/50%. And empirically it seems i usually play best when i think opponent is totally winning, hehe.

    Anyway, i’ve re-edited it again 100 times. This time I’ve decided to replace the idea of stages of the game and not attempting to win too quickly into a more general and I think probably better “precautionary” principle. This should be a sound advice for all levels i think, even for you Arek! :-)

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-23

    "Plan for the the very best play by opponent and weak and simplistic play by you. "

    The idea is to assume weak play in future for our side and strong play for his side. This should be orthogonal with defensive/offensive. That is, it should be possible to look for wins for either sides while still assuming that one side will play weak and simplistic and the other will play strong and near perfect.

    Naturally the goal of this is to allow us to make some errors in our planning and still fall by accident into a winning position.

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-25

    lazyplayer, “looking for wins” leads to problems even when assuming our own weak play and opposition perfect play.

    Probably for most players, me too, strategy of “looking for wins” starts at some stage of the game. In my case this stage is always played the worst by me, because even with all above assumptions, at some point I think I’ve found the winning way. Usually I’m wrong.

    In earlier stages I don’t look for wins, I just compare if a single move is visually superior to other options. The “early stages strategy” gradually took bigger part of my game and recently I’ve decided to try to play always like that, until the very end.

    Concluding, my advice is: instead of assuming weak play in our analysis, just don’t do analysis! (at least any deep analysis)

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    Arek, actually i agree “detailed analysis” (searching for the “principal variation” like computers) is completely the wrong way to go most of the times.

    But it seems to me that it makes more sense to “optimize” opponent’s moves than your own. Maybe this is why “defensive” play seems intuitively right for people?

    In earlier revisions, i tried (two times) to make a distinction between stages of the game, but overall i failed and re-edited this way.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    Or maybe I’m just wrong, and even in this case, there is no distinction between players. Indeed this is probably the case, it’s just illusions...

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    Ok, i edited away the dubious points,  “don't reinvent wheel” part and the “plan simplistic moves for your own side”.

    We only want the more sure and proven advices there.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    Arek, for explaining josekis, we can create many sub-pages, but first we’ve to agree on a naming convention. I say for acute corner josekis, let’s name them by coordinates, and place them on top-left. For obtuse corner, i propose to use a silly coordinate system like “A-1” is the A column and minus one row, that is the last row! :D

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    I also propose the same system for naming edge templates. Current naming system doesn’t make any sense to me (who remembers what is “Tempalte III-1-B” ???)

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    Ok, i’ve erased my checklist. Maybe same ideas will reappear in a “self-contained tutorial” one day, maybe not...

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-25

    Explaining josekis is a huge task. By “explaining” I guess you mean showing all variations that are objectively suboptimal and describing why they are. For this there should be a Q&A system where we could create the database step by step.

    I agree a naming convention would be helpful, although I don’t see how to apply naming by coordinates. Obvious convention is already applied, that is “n-th row joseki” when the first move is on the n-th row. For further distinction I don’t have any practical idea hence I used a random order.

    Btw. there are only acute corner josekis. Obtuse corners give freedom to play whatever like center. @lazyplayer, I know what example you are gonna show: http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,b10c10, yes, we can see this pattern quite often, but it’s not a joseki – almost always you can as well play tenuki there.

  • Tommah at 2017-03-25

    @lazyplayer: I have also thought about finding a better way to name the edge templates.  I think the easiest way for beginners would be to name them after the shape of the carrier.  I’ll write my ideas up on a wiki page.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    Tommah, yes, that is a reasonable idea and i support that too. I think both naming schemes would be good. The coordinate scheme has the advantage that it shows you the template in exactly the same place where it’s likely to happen. It is a way to unify treatment of templates and “josekis”.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    Example:

    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,a4m13c6 vs http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,e4m13g6

    These two are the same edge template, but naturally the name of this is “a4 c6”, not “e4 g6”. Because that is where one is likely to find it in practice.

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-25

    @lazyplayer, we should generalize more, these are all the same thing:
    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,a4m13c6
    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,a3m13c5
    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,a3m13d6
    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,a4m13d7
    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,a5m13c7
    etc.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    Arek, and sure there are obtuse corner josekis too, like the one you pointed out, but the problem is they also depend on the other edge...

    And this is why we should not play them at the start.

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-25

    A good definition would be (I edited wikipedia’s definition):
    Joseki is a studied sequence of moves for which the result is considered balanced for both black and white sides on an empty board.

    These sequences only appear in acute corners.

    In obtuse corners there are “patterns” that are playable for particular positions, but not on empty board so they cannot be objecively defined.

    Example:
    this is very often played http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,b10c10
    but on an empty board black is happy to have this http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,b10c10b11c11b12

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    http://senseis.xmp.net/?Joseki

    i think any pattern with fixed coordinates is should be considered “joseki”.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-25

    Ehehe, their page on Joseki is very good, and so is their page on Strategy. It’s very Wikipedia-style!

    Take a look: http://senseis.xmp.net/?Strategy

    I’m tempted to copy and paste from there to our hexwiki :D

  • hyperpape at 2017-03-26

    I’ll add something as a passable go player and a hex neophyte.

    If you’re keen to follow the go definition, then it’s worth stressing that the result of a joseki need not be balanced, at least in the sense that you’d be willing to play it immediately after all four corners are occupied. 

    One reason is that you have to play a joseki in the context of the whole board. A result that’s normally good can look ridiculous if there are other stones on the board that make it ineffective. But a more striking reason is that the result may always be uneven, but be considered acceptable. One reason is that there are joseki that start after a player (Black) has two moves in the corner. The result will not be “even”, but it might be the best that White can get. Another reason is that many joseki leave one side with a group that is under attack. In some cases, it may be worth giving up a lot to avoid being attacked.

    Considerations about attack and defense don’t really apply to Hex, but I suspect some of these ideas might be relevant to how hex players use the term joseki.  

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-26

    hyperpape, in hex, the equivalent of a capture is to make a stone (or several of them) completely useless. What has no equivalent in hex is that you do need to maximize your score AND minimize score of opponent at same time. In hex, at least in theory, you can just focus on your own (or on your opponent’s) connection.

    Naturally, “balanced” should be relative to number of stones played in that corner. I think this was implicit in Arek’s proposed definition. Anyawy I agree with the fact that his definition is excessively restrictive. We should use joseki like in Go i think: all reasonable sequences that tend to happen often in same position of the board.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-26

    Example, consider this potential “Joseki”. Black can now play elsewhere, and eventually when play will reach that corner, white will probably not have enough uses of his stones there. So white group is in some sense “dead”, but this is NOT obvious AT ALL at first look. It’s just experience that taught me this.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-26

    Anyway you’re invited to contribute to hexwiki too even if you’re not strong at hex. If your contributions contain errors or dubious statements, we’ll just edit it away and replace with something else. Everyone acting in good faith is welcomed! :)

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-26

    Indeed even just adding questions or “TODO” would be useful. Someone will fill the blank one day...

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-26

    @lazyplayer, your example is obviously a valid joseki, it is C1) here http://hexwiki.amecy.com/index.php/Joseki#4th_line_josekis

    I agree my definition is very restrictive, but I think it’s proper so that we separate them from other stuff. Corner fight is a very special thing and is very restrictive itself because one cannot play similiar to joseki! Playing in the acute corner else than any known joseki is just wrong and weakens ones position. Maybe in my definition I should have mention something about moves being almost forced.

    @lazyplayer, I also made it restrictive on purpose so that you stop saying that there are obtuse corner josekis. In obtuse corner a fight is free in terms of choice:
    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,e9b12
    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,e9c11
    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,e9d10
    All above are correct and none of them has any default answers nor they are forcing to play locally.

  • lazyplayer at 2017-03-27

    Arek, same thing on obtuse corner:

    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,b11 <- weakens your position

    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,d9 <- weakens your position

    http://www.trmph.com/hex/board#13,e8 <- weakens your position

    see? there is a pattern here

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-03-27

    @lazyplayer, I don’t understand how is that related to what I said

  • Tommah at 2017-04-01

    I added a forum to the wiki.  You can access it at http://www.hexwiki.net/index.php/Special:WikiForum or from the “Forum” link in the sidebar.

    Please let me know if it works.  If it does work, let’s continue this discussion on there.

  • Arek Kulczycki at 2017-04-03

    Thanks Tommah, great job! I posted to the forum. Seems that it works fine.

Return to forum

Reply to this topic




Include game board: [game;id:123456] or [game;id:123456;move:20] or [game;id:123456;move:20;title:some text]