Get nearer Einstein forum

19 replies. Last post: 2007-02-01

Reply to this topic Return to forum

Get nearer
  • Carroll ★ at 2006-05-17

    Am I the only stupid one who only saw recently that any move along a line or a column like A5-A4, B4-B3, A4-A3, A3-A2, A2-A1 ... does not get you nearer to the aim E1 !

    Chess players must know you must enter in the square like if the king was on the aiming square...

  • Theo van der Storm at 2006-05-17

    From your rating chart it looks like you once knew, but forgot it :-)

  • Ingo Althofer at 2006-05-17

    > From your rating chart it looks like you once knew, but forgot it :-)

    This joke is ok, as long as you make it with a good friend.

    By the way, Theo, please make the final move in our match
    and do not wait any longer. I want to see my rating
    dropping to a reasonable region.

    Thx, Ingo.

  • Theo van der Storm at 2006-05-17

    > This joke is ok, as long as you make it with a good friend.

    I don’t know why you are writing this here.
    Most people can take a little joke, especially when there is such a funny coincidence. Let’s not take this too seriously.
    After all: this is a gaming forum.

    > please make the final move in our match
    Done.

    > I want to see my rating dropping to a reasonable region.
    Now there’s something I agree with fully!
    In this case the smiley is hidden behind the exclamation mark in case you missed it.

    Best Regards,
    Theo

  • Carroll ★ at 2006-05-18

    ! Come on, no emoC !
    Thanks Theo for showing me the hidden Ranking function.

    Thanks Ingo to take my defense although even if I do not know Theo personally and am on a gaussian curve, I hope I will keep some humor.

    But true I did not answer because it was possible any flame in my answer would have been seen as epidermic reaction...

    It reminds me of Tim “false good luck” posts, hey guys these are game and some luck is involved !

    Do not forget to go out and breeze too.

  • Ingo Althofer at 2006-05-18

    First of all thanks to Carroll for her relaxed view!

    Now for Theo:
    > > This joke is ok, as long as you make it with a good friend.
    >
    > I don’t know why you are writing this here.
    > Most people can take a little joke,

    Right. But your way was a risky one to find out
    if Carroll belongs to “most” or to the others.

    > especially when there is such a funny
    > coincidence.

    Hmm, “funny”. I know at least three persons
    from the EinStein community who would not
    subscribe to this.


    >> please make the final move in our match
    > Done.

    Thx.

    >> I want to see my rating dropping to a reasonable region.
    > Now there’s something I agree with fully!
    > In this case the smiley is hidden behind the exclamation
    > mark in case you missed it.

    Yes, and we two know us so well that we can make
    jokes without thinking first...

    Ingo.

    PS: I am still meditating about Carrolls initial observation.
    " any move along a line or a column like A5-A4, B4-B3, A4-A3,
    A3-A2, A2-A1 ... does not get you nearer to the aim E1..."
    Maybe, there is some way to turn this into an interesting variant
    of “EinStein wurfelt nicht”.

  • Theo van der Storm at 2006-05-18

    > Yes, and we two know us so well that we can make
    > jokes without thinking first...

    > Ingo.

    Thanks Ingo.
    We are back to “normal” again.

    Theo

    PS: I was thinking: "what makes you think, I wasn’t thinking?"
    (... and then I gave up that thought, eventhough I had been thinking.)

  • ypercube ★ at 2006-05-19

    Since you mentioned variants, have you thought of playing Eimnstein in a romboid board with hexagons (like hex) - which would be like Einstein but with movements forbidden in one of the two diagonal directions.

  • Carroll ★ at 2006-05-19

    And what about a Torus where you would have to come back to your initial A5 or E1 position ?

    There, any move would get you farther and nearer from your goal !

    Now I think maybe I was not the only stupid one not to have seen it (not for you Theo)...

    Ingo, would you share your thoughts about a variant ? Other than taxi distance ? |a-b| would give nice anti-losange shapped circles with a move reducing your distance of one unit at most...

  • Theo van der Storm at 2006-05-19

    Variant 1:
    When you capture an opponent stone, you may choose to remove it from the board or place it on any empty square you like.

    Variant 2:
    The two neutral corner squares are bottomless pits in which a stone will disappear.

    Variant 3:
    There is one move penalty for the player who steps on C3.
    I.e. the opponent can then move twice.


    .... and so forth.
    These are three different game variants; not meant to be combined.

  • Ingo Althofer at 2006-05-21

    ypercube wrote:
    > Since you mentioned variants, have you thought of playing
    > Eimnstein in a romboid board with hexagons (like hex) -
    > which would be like Einstein but with movements forbidden
    > in one of the two diagonal directions.

    I have thought about lots of variants. Especially
    there are some variants on hex boards for three players.
    It works well, although the corresponding variant for
    two players does not give a very special feeling of play.

    A different case (but with relation to directions of move) is
    my game "Hermann und Thusnelda verpruegeln die Roemer"
    (translated: “Hermann and Thusnelda are beating up the Romans”),
    which remembers on the battle in old Germania in the year
    9 A.D.

    See http://www.3-hirn-verlag.de/HuT-voll.jpg for a picture.

    Hermann are moving from right to left, Thusneldas from left to right,
    and the Romans from bottom to top. H & T can regulate their "tempo"
    by making triangle moves, whereas Romans only have their standard speed.

    Ingo.

    PS: Please, use always the correct name “EinStein” (and not Einstein).
    Thanks.

  • Ingo Althofer at 2006-05-21

    Carroll wrote:
    > And what about a Torus where you would have to
    > come back to your initial A5 or E1 position ?
    > There, any move would get you farther and nearer from your goal !

    An interesting idea. Maybe somewhere is craftsman (or craftswoman)
    enough to realize such a variant on a wooden ring (with holes
    for the pieces) or on something metallic with magnetic stones or ...

    > Now I think maybe I was not the only stupid one not
    > to have seen it (not for you Theo)...

    Indeed not. And as a game designer with some experience I want to
    confirm: many new mechanisms come from miss-understandings
    and wrong rule interpretations.

    > Ingo, would you share your thoughts about a variant ?

    Of course. Already for some time I am working on a little
    book, title "EinSteins Erbe: 5x5 Varianten auf 5x5 Feldern"
    (translated: “EinStein's heritage: 5x5 variants on 5x5 squares”.)
    This work is also the reason that I do not have much time left to
    play (EinStein and other games) on LG.

    > Other than taxi distance ? |a-b| would give nice
    > anti-losange shapped circles with a move reducing your
    > distance of one unit at most...

    That is indeed in one of the many variants: Forward moves
    only in orthogonal direction, but diagonal sidesteps allowed,
    for instance, from c3 to d3 or c2 or d4 or b2.

    Ingo.

  • Ingo Althofer at 2006-05-21

    Theo wrote:
    > Variant 1:
    > When you capture an opponent stone, you may
    > choose to remove it from the board or place
    > it on any empty square you like.

    Very interesting idea. Do you allow me to mention
    it in the 5x5-on-5x5 book, of course together with
    the name of the inventor?

    > Variant 2:
    > The two neutral corner squares are bottomless
    > pits in which a stone will disappear.

    That is what we play in Jena already for several
    months, namely “EinStein with Black Holes”. Typically,
    we used only one black hole – on the central square c3.

    > Variant 3:
    > There is one move penalty for the player who steps
    > on C3. I.e. the opponent can then move twice.

    Interesting. And it brought me to a slightly different
    idea: the stone that just moved to c3 is
    marked by some pebble. When you want to move it
    again, your first move consists in deleting the pebble.
    (So, the tempo is lost only when c3-stone is to be played.)

    > .... and so forth.

    Indeed. It is possible to invent variants (or mutants)
    of EinStein almost in conveyor belt mode. The hardest
    task is to test them (intensively) and make the a proper
    shortlisting.

    For the 5x5-on-5x5 project there are just more than 100
    variants in the pipeline...


    Ingo.

  • Jörg Günther at 2006-05-21

    > For the 5x5-on-5x5 project there are just more than 100
    > variants in the pipeline...

    Maybe you should change the name to 5^5 (read 5. power of 5). And if that is still not enough just change the boardsize to 7 which should solve the problem for a long time...

    > Indeed. It is possible to invent variants (or mutants)
    > of EinStein almost in conveyor belt mode. The hardest
    > task is to test them (intensively) and make the a proper
    > shortlisting.

    That is a point I`m very curious about. Which testing methods do you use? Other s than playing with humans and Monte Carlo?


    Some variants (or meta-variants) I am wondering about:

    give the player more ways to win (my variant for making the outer corners more attractive: A player wins if he/she has a stone on both outer corners. Maybe with the option to not have to move the stone on this field. Or maybe without this option which creates very nasty situations if you have to move your stone away...).

    And the other way: create some rules to strengthen the defense. With more ways to win this would be necessary to avoid pure luck by just moving and waiting for one of the win-situations to occur. Placing beaten opponent stones somewhere seems good for defense. Or maybe some sort of “erosion” like in Rapa Nui: you can decide to move one of your stones forward or move an opponent stone backward (before or after dicing) or tilting one of the opponents stones which he has to bring up with the next move before he can use it again.


    I think more winning-strategies and more defense would make the game more tactical an probably would work better on larger boards (7x7?).

    If computers become to good in “EWN pure” (or EWN classic"?) this is the way to go in EinStein development... ;-)


    Regards,

    J?rg

  • Theo van der Storm at 2006-05-22

    > Theo wrote:
    > > Variant 1:
    > > When you capture an opponent stone, you may
    > > choose to remove it from the board or place
    > > it on any empty square you like.
    >
    > Very interesting idea. Do you allow me to mention
    > it in the 5x5-on-5x5 book, of course together with
    > the name of the inventor?

    There is a deep – if I may say so myself – thought behind this variant.
    It goes like this:

    "I foresee that computer-computer competition in the game of EinStein Wuerfelt Nicht with standard rules will become impractical, due to the very high number of games required among strong programs to show a statistically significant difference in playing strength. When reporting about such a competition, a small sample of games has to be used to make the report digestible for human consumption. It is questionable if such material can provide a convincing story.
    The variant

    "When you capture an opponent stone, you may choose to remove it from the board or place it on any empty square you like."

    is a way to add enormous computational complexity to the computer’s task. For the top programs this would create the need for heuristic approaches. I expect much bigger differences in the quality of heuristic approaches and consequently in the playing strength, so you need less games and the sample games will be more convincing.

    I did not test this variant yet. Additional rules may be needed to prevent the game from lasting too long. The challenge is to find the most interesting variant from a human perspective with the simplest rules."

    We should agree on a text along these lines for publication with may name attached.

    PS: I was also thinking about “Deep Thought” chess programs, which is what I want to prevent here.

    > > Variant 2:
    > > The two neutral corner squares are bottomless
    > > pits in which a stone will disappear.
    >
    > That is what we play in Jena already for several
    > months, namely “EinStein with Black Holes”. Typically,
    > we used only one black hole – on the central square c3.

    I see. I might have heard the phrase “Black Hole” earlier without knowing precisely what was meant. My thought here was to use more squares of the board giving more diverse games.

    > > Variant 3:
    > > There is one move penalty for the player who steps
    > > on C3. I.e. the opponent can then move twice.
    >
    > Interesting. And it brought me to a slightly different
    > idea: the stone that just moved to c3 is
    > marked by some pebble. When you want to move it
    > again, your first move consists in deleting the pebble.
    > (So, the tempo is lost only when c3-stone is to be played.)

    That is an excellent improvement on my idea.

    However, you forgot to specify if the player decides on the removal
    of the marker before or after he rolls and if he may choose to remove it at any value of the die. The latter gives the player the benefit of not having to play the stones associated with the die value. I like this defensive measure, because IMHO the game needs a bit slowing down.

    In order to reduce risk of annihilation I’d say the EinStein does not get a marker.

    Variant 3 (re-phrased):
    A stone placed on C3 receives a marker, unless it’s an EinStein.
    Before that stone can play again, the marker has to be removed.
    The removal of the marker counts a move, which is an alternative to playing a stone permissible by the die value.

    > > .... and so forth.
    >
    > Indeed. It is possible to invent variants (or mutants)
    > of EinStein almost in conveyor belt mode. The hardest
    > task is to test them (intensively) and make the a proper
    > shortlisting.
    >
    > For the 5x5-on-5x5 project there are just more than 100
    > variants in the pipeline...
    >
    > Ingo.

  • Carroll ★ at 2007-01-26

    Did anyone mention the misere variant of EinStein : the first to have a stone in opposite corner loses.

    How would the strategy be affected, do you need maximal mobility to choose farthest stone ? Is it an advantage to start ?

    Share your thoughts, or invite me to a game (with description Misere)...

  • Ingo Althofer at 2007-01-27

    Hello Carroll,

    > Did anyone mention the misere variant of EinStein : the
    > first to have a stone in opposite corner loses.
    >
    > How would the strategy be affected, do you need maximal
    > mobility to choose farthest stone ? Is it an advantage to start ?

    We tried it a few times in Jena, and a few games
    on www.inetplay.de. Games are very boring, because
    players try to proceed as slow as possible. Almost
    no diagnoal moves.

    In my opinion the first player has a small disadvantage.

    Cheers, Ingo.

  • Ingo Althofer at 2007-02-01

    On Misere-EinStein

    Carroll wrote:
    > Did anyone mention the misere variant of EinStein:
    > the first to have a stone in opposite corner loses.

    And you should add: A player, who loses all stones,
    is winner. (So “misere in total”)

    > How would the strategy be affected, do you need maximal
    > mobility to choose farthest stone ? Is it an advantage
    > to start ?

    Here in Jena, we have software to testplay all sorts
    of variants of “EinStein wurfelt nicht” (thanks to
    Jorg Sameith for the program).

    Last night I “implemented” Misere EinStein (a job of
    2 minutes) and let play the program more than 7,000
    single games in autoplay mode (in 3 hours). The results:
    * The first player gets about 48 percent score.
    * Games are 29,6 moves long in average.
    * The second player plays slightly more aggressively,
    capturing in the average 0.08 more stones from the
    opponent per game.
    * The amount of self-captures is almost identical
    for both players (and clearly smaller than the amount
    of normal captures).

    ******************************

    On the next CeBIT fair (15 to 21 of March, 2007)
    my research group (on computer-aided game inventing)
    will be present, box D-04 in hall 9). Also the Sameith
    software will be exhibited.
    Of course, activists from Little Golem will be extremely
    wellcome in our box. We will also have games there to touch.

    Ingo Althofer.

  • Carroll ★ at 2007-02-01

    Thanks Ingo to share your results with us, very interesting.

    So in the end it seems a slow game not well suited to LG but with quite interesting choices to make regarding capture and self capture.

    After a few games where I was not so brilliant because of mind deformation by normal EinStein, I agree you do not move diagonally except maybe to take a 1 or a 6 of your opponent, and I do not knwo when you should take your own pawns except if forced to along an edge. Edges should be avoided if you can if your taxi paths allow you to avoid taking your own pieces.

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]