Abalone-Theory

Starting-position:

There are many good Abalone-Players in the present days, but there is not any Abalone-Theory and least of all there is not a theory with many “terms” and for example with “several point of views”, “holistic” and “analytic”, with complex reductions of the game in some dimensions, and so on. To play well and to write an Abalone-Theory are related, but very different things.  
Some players had announced to present their theory or techniques, but all these projects stand still. There are some analyses (included my former analyses), but all very simple, with a narrow focus, maybe on tactical variations or on some less strategical elements. It seems, that the evolution of Abalone was not ready until today, to bear a Theory - the conditions to develop a Theory were not good enough.

Funky-project:

But now, maybe, the Funky-Abalone-Theory-Forum is in the lucky position to develop such a theory. This is a project and this is not the result of one human-being, rather of the evolution of Abalone. For example, even in the last 2 weeks, chriscool made some important remarks on the opening-period-chapter, nacre made the nice proposition of the ring-related-endgames, other players caused me to think about the relation between the terms (threat, push, attack, defence) and during a game with Air the importance of some patterns (infected Daisys and others) got conscious obvious.    

If you regard the headlines of  the current “Elements-catalogue”, then there are many “theoretical terms”:

Elements-Catalogue:

I. analyses-levels

II. game-periods

III. Push, Threat, Attack and Defence

IV. positional patterns

V. positional-strategical-movements

VI. strategy-principles

VII. Synthesis


First of all, there are the different point of views, levels to consider the different analytic and holistic aspects of the game. Then, there are the several game-periods and transitional phases to grip the several typical dynamic game-structures.
The next chapter treated the important “terms” of push, threat, attack and defence. My point of view is, that it is important to introduce these terms very precisely and sharp.
The positional patterns are very helpful, since, particluar if you don’t find any tactical advantage and there is not any obvious strategy, you can try  to transform current positional patterns into more advantageous positional patterns.
And if you figure out the best tactical moves with reference to the more advantageous positional patterns and with a profound underlying strategy, then this is a very advanced style to play.  
There is a difference between positional-strategical-movements and strategy-principles. The strategy-principles (material, centre-edge, dominance, coordination, key-points, initiative) are the values to esteem the situation,  but “dominance” is not a movement, rather it’s an actual state. The positional-strategical-movements (lavieren, destruction and construction, twisting, in/de-creasing complexity, disconnect- and connect-moves) are not “actual states”, but this are holistic dynamic manoeuvres.
The “Synthesis” is the climax of all these theoretical elements. The Synthesis is the highest point of view, who integrates and optimise all the former elements into an actual, concrete “plan”.


This are only the gerneral "theoretical terms" and there are many different "practical terms" in relation to each theoretical term.  
The aim of this “system” is to “describe” and to “understand/(comprehend)” the game in many aspects and dimensions. Maybe it will be possible, too, “to explain”, why one player has lost and why the other player has won the game.

Therefore the aim of this project is the "descrïption", "comprehension" and "explanation" of the Abalone game with "general" and "practical" terms, several analyses-levels and dynamic-periods.

If you take a look to the middle-game-theory, than you will find a comment to a game, analysed with many patterns of this Catalogue.

So far from the project of this theory.

Best Greetings,
Silver  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-22 13:19:24 --

A meta-theoretical scheme:

 

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-07 19:40:33 --

(Compare the Analyses-methods: http://148009.aceboard.net/148009-1987-1977-0-About-Analysis.htm#vb )

Descrïption, Comprehension, Explanation, Appraisement

First of all the General Theory provides terms to describe the game. A Beginner starts to play and he has to figure out move-patterns, positional patterns, he has to learn strategical principles, for example the exchange of marbles and position (centre), he realizes that there is sometimes an important endgame and that there is a necessity to play the opening in a particular way according to the starting-position.
The terms of the general theory introduce a Beginner into this “knowledge”.

Of the point of view of the beginners, now the beginner is able to develop a deep comprehension of the game, if he learns these terms. The elements of the theory are now from the beginning exploratory- hypotheses and the beginner will spare much time to figure out those hypothesis: now he only has to get experience to validate or disprove these hypotheses - and this process will deepen his comprehension of the game.

Of the point of view of the analysts, the analyst has now means to explain the game to beginners and to discuss with other analysts about the game. Therefore, the general theory is establishing a language to communicate about the game: a language of the Abalone-game.  

Besides the Theory, there are analysis-methods for the beginners, to get a deeper comprehension of the game and for the analysts to explain and to discuss games explicit.


Therefore the general theory provides terms for the descrïption of the game. This allows a deeper comprehension and an explanation . There are analysis-methods to structure and to support these processes.
But the General Theory can not relieve a player of the appraisement-task.
The appraisement is the task of each player and the appraisement is the expression of the individual skills, style and preferences: the expression of the individuality.
An example: A player will recognise in a game-situation weak and strong positional patterns, important and less important strategical-movements and strategical-principles. But the decision, which is the move to optimise this elements, this will be an individual decision, based on an individual appraisement, supported by the General-Theory-terms.  

 ;)