Elements-Catalogue:

I. analyses-levels
1 tactical
2 positional
3 strategical


II. game-periods
1. opening-period (+)
2. middle-game-period
3. endgame-period
4. transitional-phases

III. III. Push, Threat, Attack and Defence

1  Push, Threat, Attack
1.1 Push (2-1,3-2, 3-1 sumito)
1.2 threat (different Push-aims)
1.3 Attack: the importance of double-threats and multi-threats

2  Defence
2.1 pac and sumito 2-4
2.2 backing
2.3 block (pac-function, defense, 3-rows /\ )
2.4 Paree
2.5 separate balls
2.6 edge
2.7 completely on the edge against the centre
2.8 progressive defending (witch-ring, ...)


IV. positional patterns

a) general patterns
1. groups and isolated balls
1.1 Main/Major-groups
1.2 weak and strong isolated balls
1.3 strong and active groups
1.4 weak groups and prisoners
1.5 superior number groups
1.6 Major-group and Minor-group
1.7 group-interaction


2. Special-group-patterns
2.1 rows
2.1.1 row and block
2.1.2 rows and rows
2.2 block (special-group)
2.2,1 equivalent blocks
2.2.2 unequal blocks
2.3 Daisy
2.3.1 healthy Daisy
2.3.2 infected Daisy
2.4. others
2.4.1 pair,
2.4.2 triangle, V
2.4.3 squar, L
2.4.4 pentagon, A
2.4.5 "->"

b)endgame
1. Endgame-patterns
1.1 endgame-decision
1.2 endgame-groups (1,2,3,4,5 balls)
1.3 ring-related-principles*


V. positional-strategical-movements

1. lavieren
2. destruction and construction
3. twisting
4. in/de-creasing complexity
5. disconnect- and connect-move-decision


VI. strategy-principles

1. material (victim, change, position, ...)
2. centre-edge
3. dominance
4. coordination
5. key-points
6. initiative

VII. Synthesis

1. move-evaluation and Elements of the move-evaluation
2. timing
3. plan  


---------------------------------------------------------------

*Thank you to nacre for the idead of the ring-related-endgame-principles.  
+ Thank you to chriscool, who made critical remarks to the opening-period

I. analysis-levels

contents
1. tactical
2. positional
3. strategical
4. summery


The analyses-levels are different theoretical point of views to "describe" and to "understand" the game. We can also say, there are different theoretical point of views - perspectives respectively - to regard different aspects of the game-structure.
Rather every move or every game-structure can be observed and described by all levels simultaneously. And most of the time we have to take two or three levels to describe phenomena precisely.

--------

First, we have the tactical-view to calculate move-trees in a way like a programme.
Second, we have a positional view to figure out [i]patterns.
Third we observe the game-board with distance to estimate holistic structures by strategical principles.

If we analyse a game-situation with these three views we get "information" and a "knowledge of current situation" respectively.
At the end of this "Elements-Catalogue" we find the "Synthesis"-chapter VII., which will handle the move-estimation-problem, which includes all information of the three levels.
At the present moment we only want to present this three levels.  

----------------------------------------------------

1. tactical level *

If we analyse a game tacitcally than we try to calculate moves in the following manner: "I move here, he will move there, than I will take this move and he...": we calculate the move-possibilities - "computing trees" respectively.

Of a practical point of view we have to relate this calculated move-possibilities (computing-trees) to criteria, because we have to estimate and to compare the several possibilities.
(Of a theoretical point of view the "pure tactical analysis-level" is the space of all possible moves, calculated without any criteria)

A simple "criterion" of tactical calculation can be "to eject a marble" or in the endgame "to win the game in x moves".

For example:



Black is winning with the simple move f7e7, because Blacks "threatens" to "attack" two white marbles with this move and white can only defend one of these attacks.

There are other tasks, for example:

 

Here you have to find the win in 6 moves of black and 5 moves of white.

If we have criteria, than we focus specific areas for our calculations.

Summery:
1. A "tactical analysis" is the calculation/computing of move-possibilities/computing trees.
2. A simple "estimation-criterion" would be for example "Winning in x move".


* Thank you to chriscool for his critical remarks
------------------------------------------------

2. Positional level  

If we analyse a game positionally than we have to recognise "patterns", "shapes", "figures".
We ask ourselves: Are there main-groups, sub-groups, weak or strong isolated balls, superior number groups, rows, blocks or other particular patterns?

Its obvious: this positional point of view is very different to the tactical view. We are not calculating moves, rather recognising patterns in a specific region.  

Lets regard this image:



There are isolated balls, rows and so on and we have to recognise them. Its a complex situation and we don’t want to analyse this position now, because its to early in this introduction-chapter.

But please, try to analyse this position for some moments and observe yourself.
- You "recognise" forms and you "calculate" moves, to "understand" the dynamic of this situation.

Thus both analysis-levels are necessary to "understand" this situation, but we are theoretically able to isolate each level.

We will now analyse a less complex example:



Can we recognize any patterns for the next white-move?

Lets play like a block-player. We only sustain our block with the move "1. a3b4" (1)




And then we realize that black will play "1. ... h6g6" (2)



What has happen?

Two moves before (0), there was a two-marble group in the black-main-group, but not caged.
Now (2), there is an isolated, caged white marble inside of the black group.




-> Question: Is this pattern (2.), with a caged marble a disadvantage?

This is a question for the theory, but we will give you a provisional answer:

Lets compare this (2) situation with a other isolated-marble-situation (2 ')



The pattern-difference between (2) and (2 ') is, that the white isolated ball is in (2) in the second row of black and in the (2 ') in the third row.
In (2) this white isolated ball is "possible forerunner", to break the black group open. But it is not simple to do this.
In (2 ') the white isolated ball is not a "possible forerunner", its rather a possible ejected marble.

Thus the situation (2) is better than (2 ') of the Whites' point of view. But are there better ways for White?

Lets regard the situation again:



We understand this situation better, now. There is the black threat " 1. ...h6g6".
Can we prevent this threat ? Or is there maybe a threat-move for White ?

Question: Can we recognise any pattern for our next white-move?
 
The pattern is arising with the move: "2. c5d5d6"!  



White prevents the attack and defends the Blacks' threat with a 3-row.
Supplementary White threatens Black: there is a 3-2-sumito-row-pattern on the 7th-cross-column.

-> We have now confirmed that there is the necessity of the two levels (tacical and positional) to "understand" this position.

-------

Lets continue the analysis. What will happen now?

What is the black answer?  
In this real game black was playing g7h7. If White now attacks with the 3 row ( red arrow), than black will play a "parade-defence" (blue arrow).



We want to observe this "pattern" isolated:



With this isolated focus it appears on the surface obvious: after the parade-defence black had no problems to defend the Whites' "plan".

But if we come back to the "real game", than we recognize, that there was a second pattern on the left side. And both patterns are "wedged", "not isolated" respectively.    



White has not to defend the 2-row on the right side, but can attack on the left side with a sumito-pattern, again: „b4c4“.

-> This is an example that there are most of time several wedged patterns and "tactical analysis" is necessary to understand this interaction of these patterns.  

summery:

1. If we like to "understand" a situation than we have to analyse this situation at least with these two analysis-levels: tacitcally and positionally - only in the case of a pure tactically situation (endgame) we can neglect the positional patterns.
2. We have compared one isolated-marble-pattern with a second isolated-marble-pattern. We need experience or valid knowledge to esteem these patterns. If we have this knowledge, than we dont have to calculate tactically to figure out the better pattern, but we can decide to play the more advantageous pattern based on our knowledge. To recognize and to save this pattern-knowledge is the aim of a middle- and end-game theory.
3. Very often patterns are "wedged". And we have to realize “tactically " if there are wedged patterns or not.

---------------------------------------------------------------

3. strategical level

If we calculate specific move-possibilities and if we recognize patterns and wedged patterns than we focus particular areas of the game. This point of views are more analytic and less holistic. Until now there is a lack of a holistic point of view.

If we regard this example than we will recognize that the positional-pattern in this game [image 2] is similar to the opening-pattern of a stage-2-opening [image 1] (compare Standard-Opening-Theory/1.Introduction).



In the this situation [image 2] Black has the possibility to eject a marble (bue line). But if Black eject this marble [image 3] than White can conquer the centre (red line and image 4).

Tactical analysis: this is a simple sequence:
1. e3de  e8e7
 
Positional analysis:
In Image 1 and 2 Black has the centre and a solid Block-pattern.
But in image 3 and 4 Black has to face three strong white 3-rows and two of them are sumito and one is still pac.

The strategical analysis shows, that Black has won material, has lost the centre and therefore an important key-point, black has also lost the dominance, the coordination of the black marbles is less good now and White has a strong initiative.  

(Compare the strategical Principles: VI.)

summery:
1. there is the necessity to complete the first two analysis levels with a more holistic point of view.
2. The strategical "point of view" is focused on holistic aspects of the game structure related to principles.

-------------------------------------------------

4. summery

1. A "tactical analysis" is the calculation/computing of move-possibilities/computing trees.
2. We need at least one "estimation-criterion" to esteem and to compare the several move-possibilities.  
3. If we like to "understand" a situation than we have to analyse this situation at least with two analysis-levels: tactically and positionally - only in the case of a pure tactically situation (endgame) we can neglect the positional patterns.
4. If we want to compare different patterns, than we need experience or valid knowledge to esteem these patterns. If we have this knowledge, than we don’t have to calculate tactically to figure out the better pattern, but we can decide to play the more advantageous pattern.
5. Very often patterns are "wedged". And we have to realize "tactically" if there are wedged patterns or not.
6. There is the necessity to complete the two analysis levels (tactical, positional) with a more holistic point of view.
7. The strategical "point of view" is focused on holistic aspects of the game structure related to principles.

important remark:

We did not analyse tactically very deep, we have not presented knowledge of patterns and we have not deepened the understanding of the strategical principles. We will explain all this more detailed in later chapters of this "Elements"-presentation and we will investigate these levels in the different fora - this is the "main-aim" of different fora.
This chapter followed the aim to introduce three analysis-levels.
There are for example "positional-strategical-movements" and we can only describe these movements with both levels - positional and strategical.
Analyses-levels are different to principles, movements, patterns. Analyses-Levels are only the point of view/perspective to recognise move-possibilities, principles, movements and patterns.    

II. game-periods


1. opening-period

There are many starting-positions (Compare: http://148009.aceboard.net/148009-109-1416-0-Introduction-Openingtheory.htm#vb)

My suggestion to define the “opening-period” is:
“The opening-period is the period, from the start till the opponents have pretty occupied the first ring.”
Most of the time this happens between the 4-9 move - depending on the starting-position.


2. middlegame-period

The characteristic of the middle-game is, that there is a “problem”: The Middle-game-problem
One player has to conquer at least one “key-point” to break down the structure of the opponent and to reach a end-game.

If the game is not changing from the opening into a long endgame, than there is a middle-game-problem: a battle in the centre and the necessity for "solutions" - strategical and positional - or at least one problem.  

There are games pretty without middle-games: If a very good player plays against a Beginner, it is possible that the game is changing from the opening into the endgame, without a middle-game. But most of the times, there is a middle-game, particular if there play two nearly equipollent opponents - and depending of the starting-postion.


3. endgame-period

We can distinguish two ideal-types of practical endgames.

1. middle-game-extension-endgames
You have to play these endgames with the "positional patterns" and "strategical-positional movements" of the middle-game. The "strategy-principles" are understated and the tactical-requirements are  raised - but both not too much.

A very simple example:


Black to move and win in two moves

2. real-endgames
The  "strategical-positional-movements" and the "strategy-principles" are now pretty invalid. There are particular "positional-endgame"-patterns and the tactical-requirements are raised much onto this particular positional-endgame-patterns, which are similar or in a way identical to the theoretical endgames.

For example:

Black to move and win in 5 moves (5 black, 4 white-moves)



4. transitional-phases

a) opening-middle-game-transitional-phase (first transitional phase)

There is the opening-period: from the start till the opponents have pretty occupied the first ring. And there is the middle-game-problem.
Very often there is a transitional phase between this two periods, with a very decisive importance.
The important task of the first transitional phase is: to lead the game from the opening into a advantageous middle-game-problem.

In standard-games and in standard-related games( click here http://148009.aceboard.net/148009-109-1416-0-Introduction-Openingtheory.htm#vb) on Level 1-2 (click here http://148009.aceboard.net/148009-109-209-0-Standard.htm#vb), there is very often even not a very short first transitional phase. Most of the time the game is going from the opening into a very famous middle-game-problem.

b) middle-game-end-game transitional-phase (second transitional phase)

Depending on the middle-game-problem, there will be a real-endgame or not. If there is a real-endgame-possibility with advantage, then the second  transitional phase is of a big importance, too: the player has to lead the middle-game into the advantageous real-endgame.

If there is a possibility for a “middle-game-extension-endgame” then there isn’t a  transitional-phase or a real endgame.  


Summery:
1. “The opening-period is the period, from the start till the opponents have pretty occupied the first ring.”
2. The characteristic of the middle-game is, that there is a “problem”:
The Middle-game-problem(s) one player has to conquer at least one “key-point” to break down the structure of the opponent and to reach a end-game.
3. There are two kind of endgames:  middle-game-extension-endgames and real-endgames
4. The important task of the first transitional phase is: to lead the game from the opening into a advantageous middle-game-problem.
5.The importance of the second transitional phase is:  the player has to lead the middle-game into the advantageous real-endgame – if there is the possibility for a real-endgame.  

III. Push, Threat, Attack and Defence

1. Attack

1.1 Push

To push your opponent's marbles, a "Sumito" must be set up: one of the three superiority inline positions: 3-1,3-2, 2-1. The opponent's "marbles" may only be "pushed" "in line" when in contact and only providing there is a "free space" or the edge behind the pushed marble(s).


1.2 threat

A simple threat is the possibility to push or to move on a free spot - a free spot can also be an important key point, for example.
But there are move complex threats, too.

.......


1.3 Attack and the importance of double-threats and multi-threats



Continuation  

Continuation: III. Attack and Defense

2  Defense
2.1 pac and 1-2,2/1-3-sumito and 3-4
2.2 edge
2.3 backing
2.4 block
2.5 Paree
2.6 seperate balls
2.7 completely on the edge against the centre
2.8 progressive defending  

IV. positional patterns

a) general-patterns

1. groups and isolated balls

1.1 Main-groups
1.2 weak and strong isolated balls
1.3 strong and active groups
1.4 weak groups and prisoners
1.5 superior number groups
1.6 group-interaction  

Continuation: IV. positional patterns

2. Special-group-patterns
2.1 rows
2.1.1 row and block
2.1.2 rows and rows
2.2 block (special-group)
2.2,1 equivalent blocks
2.2.2 unequal blocks

Continuation: IV. positional patterns
----------------------------------------------------------------

2.3 Daisy

There are two different Daisies, the healthy Daisy and the infected Daisy. If there is a chaotical or complex situation, than it can be sometimes very helpful to build a infected Daisy. If you have intitiative and advantage than it could be one positional aim to transform this infected Daisy to a healthy Daisy.
If the opponent has a block or three-rows in front of the infected Daisy, than it can be helpful to keep the isolated ball as a resistance-element and to transform the infected Daisy into a triangle.
But a infected Daisy can be also a disadvantage, cause by the infected marble.


2.3.1 healthy Daisy



2.3.2 infected Daisy



examples:

The transformations are related to the structures.

building of a "infected Daisy" in a komplex situation:



transformation of a infected Daisy into a triangle with one captured adversarial marble:


transformation of a infected Daisy into a healthy Daisy or a strong block-group.



transformation of a adversarial strong block-group into a infected Daisy (defense)


(in this example black keeps the centre caused by the infected Daisy 1. f8e7 d3d4)

2.4. others
2.4.1 pair,
2.4.2 triangle, V
2.4.3 square, L
2.4.4 pentagon, A
2.4.5 "->"  

Continuation: IV. positional patterns

b) endgame
1. Endgame-patterns
1.1 endgame-decision
1.2 endgame-groups (1,2,3,4,5 balls)
1.3 ring-related-principles

V. Strategical-positional-movements

1. lavieren
2. destruction and construction
3. twisting
4. in/de-creasing complexity
5. disconnect- and connect-move-decision

VII. Synthesis

1. move-evaluation and Elements of the move-evaluation
2. timing
3. plan

Hello,

if somebody wants to work on this site, than dont hesitate to post your ideas in the "About-Theory"-Forum: http://148009.aceboard.net/148009-1838-0-About-Theory.htm

Best Regards,
AbaloneTheory-Forum

I consider this the best website for Abalone theory, but I have a feeling that the forum structure is better suited for generating knowledge than for structuring knowledge.

I feel that a wiki site would be benneficial for the usability of the information here, but I have no suggestion as to where such a site could be hosted.

My favorite wiki is Mediawiki. In my opinion, it provides the best mix between presentation, ease of editing, authorization, and discussion.

http://www.mediawiki.org/

Hello nacre,

thank you, again, for your suggestions !  

If I will return to Abalone (maybe in 6 months) than I will create a website to complete the forum, on the one hand generating knowledge and on the other hand structuring knowledge - and I will check mediawiki, too.
I have already written down a theory - but until now in German language.

If anybody likes to integrate my ideas and to work out a different Theory of Abalone feel free to do this, take what you want, here or on any other site.

For example I am looking forward to regard a new, different Theory of chriscool or gohatto - anytime

Best Regards,
Silver  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2006-06-12 08:05:09 --

Regarding copying structured knowledge to a wiki: The first prerequisite is to get a wiki-server.

One possible way to do this is to use a public wiki-server like http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia

More public wiki-servers can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_hosting

Does anybody have an opinion on this?

Hello Nacre,

hm, I dont have the right clue at the moment to understand your suggestion well enough.
Is this wiki-server a possibilty to present Abalone-Knowledge ?

And this would be published by different authors, wouldnt it? So, for example there was much criticism for my theory by chriscool. And for example I never got a consensus with Eob about any details of this theory, too. In contrary there was not any way to discuss anything. In the past there was only a social teaching-interaction-form by some self-proclaimed masters.
Do you see a way to present a theory there with consensus of some authors?
(And my English is obviously insufficient to do this, too.)  

But thank you for your information, again.

My general impression of theories is that they are the work of single authors - who build on the work of other authors.

Thus, you have made a significant contribution to the body of Abalone knowledge - other authors may build upon this and develop their own theories. Criticising the work of others may spur new ideas. If some work has a particular high quality, it may build a school of thinking. Only time can tell which theories will last.

You speak of the problem of discussion with other Abalone experts. A wiki would not solve this, it would merely provide a place to *publish* theories, which provides more control of the presentation, than theories published in a forum. In fact, I think that a forum is the ideal place for *discussions* about theory.

Quote :

My general impression of theories is that they are the work of single authors

Quote :

Criticising the work of others may spur new ideas.

Quote :

In fact, I think that a forum is the ideal place for *discussions* about theory.

I agree, no doubt.

Probably I have not verbalized my question to you well enough or I did not understand your message. Do you have a proposition how we, you, me (?) can organize such a wiki-project concretley?

Your proposition is, that we take the frame of this theory (Catalogue of the General-Theory) and then we work all together to write it down and we discuss the problems in a forum ? - this is the way I would favour, but then there are some questions about the social order to organize this project and the question, if there are ANY other authors? Or should I present it by myself ?

thanks.

No, I did not propose a concrete way to structure a wiki-project - but let me do so now: Copy the structure found here on Abalone-Theory-Website. It is well structured, and I think that it will be more accessible on a wiki. In addition to this there are a few other websites with valuable information that could be collected.

About organisation, this is a difficult problem. The purpose of moving it was to activate the knowledge such that other authors would find it easy to contribute. I'm aware that there have previously been a conflict between you and Eob, so perhaps the project is better run by a third person. This could be myself or perhaps Mogwai, subject to the opinion of the authors (including you of course)

Hello Nacre,

ok, this sounds good to me.
Let me think about it.