|
| A disadvantage with the new opening rules | 2008-10-25 03:36:59 |
| (Of course) I think the new rules are better than the RIF-rule. It gives more playable variants. Many players have done a great job to make this change possible. The new opening rules will be tested until year 2012 but it’s interesting to start discussing the positive and negative things with the ... |
| Ants Soosõrv | 2008-11-01 20:16:22 |
Hej Kristian!
Nice to see your ideas! Tunnet have mentioned me several times, that extrarule with 5 fifth moves is coming too usual, not only having purpose for what it was made. So defenetly your idea is interesting and we should test it. Hopefully we will meet in Swedish team championship and can discusse it? |
| |
| Kristian Lindberg | 2008-11-02 03:52:53 |
Hej Ants!
Thank you for your answer!
Unfortunately I won´t be able to come to Stockholm that weekend, it would have been nice to talk to you.
Interesting that you and Tunnet have talked about the 5 fifth moves. So hopefully the discussion about it will continue and as you wrote, we can test this idea and see if it´s worth fighting for.
I would appreciate if you were able to discuss my ideas with Tunnet and some other estonian players and we can be in touch again. I´ve talked to Stefan about it and tried to convince him that it´s a great idea :-).
Take care!
|
| |
| Sushkov | 2008-11-05 18:13:06 |
It's really an interesting idea - to make forth move withing the square made by third.
But some examples of positions come into my head, which were played with RIF rules and are not possible with present proposal (notation with i and j):
orthodox 4th move in 8d: 1 h8, 2 h9, 3 h7, 4 h6
some more unusual 4th moves: 4 - i6 or 4 - j9
orthodox pattern in 6i: 1 h8, 2 i9, 3 i8, 4 j8 |
| |
| Kristian Lindberg | 2008-11-06 04:19:43 |
Hello Sushkov!
The sentence "If you are forced to play the fourth move within the same square as the third (5x5)" that I used in the blog wasn´t so good. It´s easy to misunderstand.
Instead I should have written "If you are forced to play the fourth move within a 5x5 central square..."
That was my purpose with the fourth move. Then this variants that you mention will be playable. Hope you think it sounds interesting anyway... :-) |
| |
| Sergey Artemyev | 2008-11-07 10:56:11 |
Hi guys !
It's very interesting topic for me, because i have a strong feeling that many alternative 5th moves gives too unnatural game in the beginning, when they placed on the board at the same time. And tricks with removing some of them from the board and then placing again don't looks good for serious game.
I like Kristian's idea, it seems there are only few problems - in some variants of I1, D1 and D2 - but these are not key variants anyway.
Please check my idea with modification of Tarannikov rule:
First move played in center, second in 3x3.
Then, 3rd and 4th moves must be placed at distance not more than 2 stones from 1st or 2nd stone (in other words, in 5x5 of first stone or in 5x5 of second stone).
Fifth move can be placed anywhere.
This variant breaks tradition of 26 openings, but gives some more creativity. I checked some openings - for me it wasn't easy to get crazy 5-moves position, maybe there are just few such variants.
Please let me know if you see any serious flaw in these rules. |
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2008-11-07 19:08:26 |
I have found the topic of this discussion as very unessential. In fact, we have many more important and dangerous problems now.
During some years we tried to find Renju opening rules which could be proper for different groups of players: for conservative and creative, for beginners and advanced. We had not success here after a huge number of attempts. Now we have some sets of opening rules. Such situation will be at least four next years and after that, truly speaking, we have small chances to accept only one set of rules. It is sufficient to mention that Japanese players continue to play Meijin-sen competitions according old classic RIF. So, some sets of rules will exist during some next years and players will be forced to study all of them. Any new propositions will not go to the immediate cancellation of already certified rules. So, for new propositions we must select something principally new and important.
The proposition of Kristian and its modification of Sergey differ from Tarannikov rules only by the changing of the zone for the 4th move. The question is: who wins from this change? For conservative players the difference is negligible since the “crazy” 4th moves will be possible in the reduced zone too by the big number of ways. |
|
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2008-11-07 19:09:07 |
Creative players will not be satisfied since the space for creativity comparing with Tarannikov rules will be reduced significantly. For beginners there are no any difference between new propositions and Tarannikov rules. So, why we need to introduce new intermediate rules if it will not give any benefits to any group of players?
It is much more important to certify Sakata (and probably Tarannikov rules) since it will give new principal possibilities for the game. 1) Sakata rules will give a lot number of new variants. 2) Sakata rules are easy for beginners. 3) China delegations supported Sakata rules at some last GA RIF, so, now China side is not satisfied that their opinion was ignored. It can destroy the relation in the Renju world.
Concerning the question of convenience of beginners with alternative moves. Now beginners can play be free rules (without openings) and by classic RIF rules. I hope beginners will have the possibility to play by Sakata rules. Nevertheless, since Yamaguchi/Soosyrv/Taraguchi rules are certified, the players will be introduced to them. The easiest way (by my opinion) is to do it during the tournament by the rejection system. In some late Russian tournaments with the rejection system the players who have not the dan level yet have the possibility to demand the using of the classic RIF rules. So, beginners can play by familiar rules and to be introduced to new rules simply looking to the games at other boards.
Also I want to mention that alternative moves stimulate players (including beginners) to understand Renju deeper. The player is thinking which move is strongest, which is the second, which is the third, etc. In some other opening systems (without alternatives) they do not to think about it, so, the opening homework frequently is reduced to the preparation of particular variants without the understanding of the place of these variants in the whole opening theory.
Finally, for advanced players the most important problem now: do new certified rules allow to avoid some bore variants? The problem of D11 opening was solved in Soosyrv and Taraguchi rules but analogous problems can arise in some other openings like D9, D5 etc. So, the final decisions on opening rules it will be impossible to do without the analyses of these problems.
|
| |
| Sergey Artemyev | 2008-11-08 20:00:08 |
Hello Yuriy !
Position you showed is the strong argument agains area-based limits for 4th move. 5th move can be played almost everywhere and strongest 6th will be g9, which still leaves some chances for black even with 5th move in a corner. Too chaotic game. |
| |
| Kristian Lindberg | 2008-11-09 21:36:10 |
Hello!
If you don´t see any problem with the 5 fifth moves in the Taraguchi-rule, then of course the discussion is “very unessential”, for others it isn’t.
I agree that some “crazy” fourth moves can be made, but I think it is better than the existing rule with 5 fifth moves.
If you want to avoid that the fifth move is placed in the corner maybe a forbidden zone for this move also is a good idea (7x7 for example).
|
| |
|