Discussion about the terms of the Glossary

Here we want to collect and to discuss terms of an Abalone-Glossary.

You can find the Glossary here:  http://148009.aceboard.net/148009-108-2328-0-Glossary.htm#vb

We will edit the glossary-message in the glossary-topic, if necessary.

Greetings,
Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub  

--Last edited by Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub on 2005-11-18 17:57:04 --

Hello,

my first proposal is to adopt the terms of the Official-Rules-article.


Official Rules

Winning the game
Push the opponent's marbles off the hexagon board.
First player to eject six of his/her opponent's marbles wins.
After tossing for colours, blacks play first.
Players move in turn.
Once played, a move cannot be changed.


Moves
On his/her turn, a player may shift one, two, or three marbles together in any of the six possible directions, provided there is an adjacent free space:  There are: In line and broadside-moves.

When two or three marbles of the same colour shift together, they must be moved in the same direction.
Moving more than three marbles of the same colour on a single turn is not allowed.
One, two, or three marbles of the same colour, which are part of a larger row, may be separated from the row played.
A single move may not lead to conquering more than one space at a time.

Sumito: Pushing Means Outnumbering
To push your opponent's marbles, a "Sumito" must be set up, i.e. one of the three superiority positions.
The opponent's marbles may only be pushed "in line" when in contact and only providing there is a free space behind the attacked marble or group of two marbles.

Pushing is not allowed if:
There is no free space behind your opponent's group.
There is an empty space between your group and the opponent's.
The marbles are not in line.


"Pac": Position of Balanced Forces
The only three possible Pacs are the following:
1 to 1 Pac
2 to 2 Pac
3 to 3 Pac

More than three marbles of the same colour and "in line" do not change the three to three stand-off.
In a "Pac" position, neither side can push.
The "Pac" must be broken along a different line of attack.

Ejection
A marble is ejected when it is pushed off the board. The first player to eject six of his/her opponent's marbles wins the game.

Limited-Time Variation
Each player may be restricted to a limited period of time for each game, e.g. 10 or 15 minutes each. Official tournaments should always be played with time limitation.

source: http://uk.abalonegames.com/rules/basic_rules/official_rules.html

How many rings ?



There are different opinions about the rings.
This image suggests 4 rings, but the question is:

Are there 4 rings and a centre-spot ?
Or are there 5 rings ?

This is not a question about perceived reality, but a question about definition.  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-11 17:15:05 --

You mean how many rings with e5 as the center ?

Because if you choose other spots as the center, you have dozens and dozens of rings.  ;)  

--Last edited by Abalekon on 2005-11-11 23:08:21 --

Hello Abalekon,

its the question with e5 as a centre  
Thats the reason, why there is written "4 rings" with "centre".  

This should be only the question of this message. Because there are two opinions and its only a question of "definition". And we want to know, which is the more obvious one.  
Therefore the question is also: Is the centre a spot or a ring?

But you can/should write a new message in the "About Theory"-Forum, where you describe your opinion/theory of the dozens of rings

Dont hesitate !  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-12 00:10:55 --

what seems the most obvious?:
num cells = 61 = 6*(4+3+2+1) + 1
or
num cells = 61 = 6*(4+3+2+1+0.1666666)

=> 4 rings

max manhattan distance to "center" = 4

=> 4 rings

there is 1 "periph" in Paris => 1 ring and 1 center...
etc, etc, ...


imho, lol  

--Last edited by kopedito on 2005-11-12 10:14:30 --

It seems obvious to me that the center is a spot, not a ring.
Therefore there are 4 rings with e5 at the center.

I'm not sure I'm able to conceive a "theory of the rings", but I'll think about it.  

And I currently have another work in progress...  ;)

Abalekon, I think the question raised because 'nacre' once used the 5 rings therminology which could be misleading if we don't speak the same language.

Anyway, we've found a new friendly nickname for Silver: "Frodo, The Lord of the Rings"

regards.  

--Last edited by kopedito on 2005-11-12 10:39:33 --

 

Ok, so three memebers say it seems proper to say: there are 4 rings and a centre.

I have a second question:

Nacre called this situation a "witch-ring since it is a pretty damned situation to be in for the defender"



I agree with the name "witch-ring".
Any other suggestions ?
 

I agree with the name too   but I have to remarks :

1) this situation of game is purely theoretical, you can find real situations approaching that, but I doubt you will ever see such a perfect ring.

2) in this situation, who is the defender ? The position of white is pretty good, but 4 white marbles are already ejected. Black has still all his 14 marbles, but his position is weak.

I think this situation can be won by white, who has the center. Thus, black is the defender.

About ring terminology. I number rings from the center, this makes sense when you compare larger games (full board with side length 5) with smaller games (e.g a single group in the daisies, side length 2)

The rings have names after their side length: ring 1 is the center marble, ring 5 is the outer ring.

If you prefer 1 center + 4 rings, you can define the ring name from the radius of the ring, metric is manhattan distance = number of single-marble moves: ring 0 is the center marble, ring 4 is the outer ring.

I would feel more comfortable in the white position. However, whites may not be able to eat blacks without compromising their structure and position. So, i wouldn't be surprised if blacks could win either.

About the center being a ring or not :
1- nothing forbids a single spot to be referred as a ring as long as it is convenient, ring n being then the set of all spots being at a distance of n from the center ;
2- handling rings and rings only may be more convenient for an application than handling 4 rings and one spot (it is usually a good rule of thumb to limit special cases when programming).  

--Last edited by chriscool on 2005-11-14 19:35:49 --

Hello

first, I try to summarise this discussion:

I. 4-/5-rings
II. witch-ring

I.

A. arguments: 4 rings and 1 centre:

1. What seems the most obvious?:
num cells = 61 = 6*(4+3+2+1) + 1
or
num cells = 61 = 6*(4+3+2+1+0.1666666)

2. Max manhattan distance to "center" = 4

3. Here is 1 "periph" in Paris => 1 ring and 1 centre...

4. “It seems obvious to me that the center is a spot, not a ring.
Therefore there are 4 rings with e5 at the center.“

B. arguments: 5 rings:

1.  “About ring terminology. I number rings from the center, this makes sense when you compare larger games (full board with side length 5) with smaller games (e.g a single group in the daisies, side length 2)”

2. Nothing forbids a single spot to be referred as a ring as long as it is convenient, ring n being then the set of all spots being at a distance of n from the center ;

3. Handling rings and rings only may be more convenient for an application than handling 4 rings and one spot (it is usually a good rule of thumb to limit special cases when programming).  


II. witch-ring

1. Nobody declines the term “with-ring”, because its a difficult situation anyway - independent of the question: "Who is the defender?"
2. There is a discussion about the real score.


----------------------------------------------------------
my comments:

I.

I don’t think that handling only rings is “more” convenient (B2), because the centre-spot is – most of the time - very familiar  and the “common Abalone-perception” suggests rather the centre-4-rings-idea.(A4)
But the comparison-argument (B1) and the fact, that it is possible to regard a single spot as a ring (B2) are of my point of view very important arguments.

A1-4 are a expressions of common sense, intuitive and logical views. This is very coherent to me.
But (B1) is a important technical analysis-view, I think so.
   

II.

Of my point of view, probably White can force a draw, maybe even in the case of 0 – 5.
Thus the only question is, if there are winning-chances  for White. I think that White has not a winning-chance in the case of 0-5, because black will attack White sufficient, if White tries to eject marbles. (chriscools argument, I think so). If White tries to eject a marble in this case, than Black will conquer space in the first rings. Its not necessary to build a 3-row in this case, I think so, too.
The question to me is still, which is the best strategy for White to win in the case of 0-4 ? Is there really a possibility to eject one single marble after the next single marble without losing the position?
A second question would be: is this certainly a draw for White? Probably yes. But in the case of 0-5, too ?  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-15 22:47:34 --

I.A.1. is not a relevant arguement to me because the purpose is not to count the number of spots.

I.A.2. is an arguement for both conceptions, depending you relies on a base 0 or base 1 (base 1 : rings {1, 2, 3, 4 } and base 0 : rings {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 }).

I.A.3 "proof by analogy is fraud". This is an analogy and cannot be considered as a valid arguement.

I.A.4 is just a subjective feeling and is not an valid arguement for that reason.

To sum it up, no valid arguement has been presented so far for 4 rings+1 spot.

I will repeat myself. A fact is that the center is a spot *and* a ring.

1- For a computer, it is better to handle 5 rings rather than 4 rings+1 spot. This will be obvious to anyone who is familiar with software design. However, i can explain why if you ask me.

2- For humans, it could be referred as both without any understanding problem. However, if it happens one day that algorithms are found, they will be expressed far more clearly with a normalized representation (ie 5 rings) for the very same reasons as 1-.

My conclusion is that everyone should feel comfortable with both representations, but if one and only one should be chosen, then the rings only representation should be this one.  

--Last edited by chriscool on 2005-11-16 12:35:52 --

chriscools answers

to I.A.1.: this is a subjective answer. The relevance of the argument A.1. is obvious, I think so.
If "manhatten-distance" is an "argument" for both, than the  cells-example is also an "argument".

to A.3: nobody is speaking of "proof", we speak of arguments. A.3 is an analogy and an analogy can be an "argument". One should show the inadequacy of the analogy and not denunciate an analgoy, since it is an analogy. This is too general, I think so.

to A4: is a subjective feeling AND a presentable expression of many Players, to the "common Abalone-perception" - as I have written. If you dont think that this is the case, then you should show the opposite.

I think this are all "arguments". Maybe you can confute these arguments, but than this are still arguments. I ask myself for the weight of these arguments.
And of my point of view B2 has the strongest argument-weight.

your 1. and 2.

We dont speak of terms for Programming here. Programming is a different topic. The topic is the glossary.

"if one and only one should be chosen, then the rings only representation should be this one."
I think this is your preference, probably because B1 and B2 have the strongest argument-weight for you.  

--Last edited by SIlverSurfer on 2005-11-16 13:14:25 --

So you have the identical argument-term as chris. I prefer to look for the argument-weight, to look "between 0 and 100" and not to judge if "1 or 0".  

A3 is pretty near to 0, but it is not 0 of my argument-weight-point of view.


Have you any argument for your last proposition ? I dont see any argument for this proposition "moreover it would be better, I think, to start the numbering on the border rather than on the centre".  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-16 13:25:47 --