ps : i edited my previous message in the same time you posted yours...

pps : i am realizing that all our discussion was off-topic - but still interresting - (not about programming an AI designed around a pattern reckognition neural network). Could it be possible for you to move it somewhere else, please (I don't know the correct location, actually) ?  

--Last edited by chriscool on 2005-10-25 23:33:07 --

Ok, thanks.

I did not want to say that your comments are not based on practice, but I want to say "the point of view" to this object was different, sure with practic in the background. I think this are too different things.
Maybe I have to say "perspective" instead of "point of view"?
One can argue with a theoretical or a practice point of view, independent of practical or theorectical knowledge. Probably if there is no knowledge, than this is bullshit, but the perspective is still a perspective.
I mean the difference: "theoretical or practical perspectice", not  "practical background or not".

And I agree: large theorical fields are still to be explored in abalone.

I only speak of variants like BelgiumDaisy or DutchDaisy.

But the question is if we have to include the Fischer Random Chess / Chess960  

--Last edited by Silversurfer on 2005-10-25 23:46:56 --

The background of my last thoughts is my last discussion with gohatto, and his descrïption of their (eob and goha) current experimentations in abalone.

To sum up the most significant traits he reported to me :

1- the complexity is such than both of them could hardly forsee more than 3 moves ahead ;
2- they take the time to evaluate as much possibilities as possible (a transposition of what is done in chess, said goha, despite the lack of well-known patterns) ;
3- they try to avoid all possible risk, meaning their main goal is to regroup themselves strongly in the middle, while avoiding the opponent to do the same.

This leads to games that are completely different of what they were used to play at the time i was still a member of the abalone community, and it seems this game is only possible when structures and positions are not granted from the beginning like it is the case in standard.  

--Last edited by chriscool on 2005-10-25 23:51:19 --

hm, this is my opinion too and this are my experiences too, but I think there are some situations in the game, when you look deeper than 3 moves, for example in the endgame or in some difficult situations in the middle-game.
The opening is very often knowledge or "holistic-thinking", I think so.
The point "3." I have observed in their games, too. I play in this way, if I play against Aba-Pro. I play against Aba-Pro not with the aim to win against the programme, because I should play in a different, tricky way to win against it. But Aba-Pro is strong if you play like this (3.) - its not a perfect, but a good opponent in this kind of battle, I think so. And if you play level 8 or 9 you dont have to wait too long and this is: 4-5 moves deepth.

Again I invite you to watch the practical-tasks. There are some 5 move-tasks and I am able to solve those kind of tasks very fast. I think goha, eob, lilou and some other players, too.  

--Last edited by Silversurfer on 2005-10-26 00:08:59 --

I agree there are moments when you can forsee more than 3 moves.

This is typically the case, in my mind when :
1- you have less balls on the board (obviously) ;
2- you have more balls aggregated (if not starting in standard) ;
3- the multiple goals are not conflicting (in difficult situations, it's often that one goal becomes prioritary to any other one, wich may reduce the complexity, mainly by letting you know what is the goal pursued for the next moves to come by your opponent).

About the opening, there are often too many possible choices with no immediate feed-back for you to know for sure what was the best move. Without immediate (or at least short terme) feed-back, brute force demands too many brute force, thus letting no real options other than hollictics  

--Last edited by chriscool on 2005-10-26 00:10:06 --

hm, I think it is possible to study the opening very well. I have done this for some variants in Belgium-Daisy and I am very content with the results. It seems to me, that it is possible to figure out good and bad opening-moves.
I study games with mistakes and then I try to generalize these mistakes to disadvantage-functions and advantage-functions for each starting-configuration. For example Belgium-Daisy is here different to German-Daisy.
So, if you make experiments and if you study the functions than there will be left 2-5 moves for every step.

If you compare here chess, than the chess-players have studied the opening-theory before the end-game or the middle-game since hundreds of years. And today the opening-preparation is one of the most important element in the game of the Grand-Masters. They have to update their "opening-book" from week to week.
I think this will come in abalone, but we are far away

This is a huge work if you consider all the variants curently existing and, maybe, the ones to come, especially with so few players...  

--Last edited by chriscool on 2005-10-26 00:18:23 --

lol, yes, and this is not "my" work. This is for example one project of this Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub, but in reality its the Abalone-evolution, I am nothing compared with the evolution, but i have no problem with this fact  

--Last edited by Silversurfer on 2005-10-26 01:18:03 --

 

I can imagine, that Abalone will be played in future much better and advanced than today, if children at the age of 5-6 learn Abalone like chess with tasks and theory. And if these players write again a well developed theory and their children will learn it at the age of 5-6....  ...evolution...

...  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-10-28 05:47:46 --