|
| The extended Yusui rules | 2009-09-09 17:30:08 |
| In this article I want to analyze the current situation with opening rules and to propose the new opening rules. |
| Igor Magdeev [img_at | 2009-09-10 02:16:56 |
I have some questions :
- What are the benefits of NMAX being declared? It seems a role of NMAX to quantify the levels of tournament (from beginners to highest) only. It would be better to see NMAX role introduced in details.
Of course, I can imagine that we can deal with long "bidding stage" before actual stones appear on board in case of too many alternatives suggested at first. But it seems stupid for both players to do so.
- The NMIN value is questionable also. If we do declare it for certain opening only but not for all openings, then the rule is not "general". May be for quantifying the level of tournament it is better to use NMIN (=1 for beginners) for all openings instead of NMAX?
- The last point for beginners. How new rules will be pretty close to classic if the FIRST player will put 4 moves on board (second says "play")? What are the preferences to swap after 4th move but not after 3rd? |
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2009-09-10 14:23:29 |
Igor, thank you for your interest and for your questions.
At first, I note that I did not create my own original opening rule. I just extended the rule proposed by Japanese. Different players or group of players (including nations) have different requirements for opening rules. Sometimes, creating own original rule it is difficult even to imagine a reason why others will not accept this rule. Therefore, my idea was to make minimal possible changing in a rule proposed by Japanese to satisfy requirements of European players. More significant changes have a risk that it will kill something important for creators of an original rule. In particular, in this case I try to extend the space of playable variants and to make it uniform along all 26 openings.
Concerning NMAX, if it will be allowed to declare 30 5th moves then in some situations it can be used by some players without a risk of an immediate loss. But it be estimated as very strange situation by many our opponents and a good rule can be declined only by this reason. Maybe, even 7 5th alternative moves are too much but here there exists an argument that 7 5th alternative moves were played already at WC (World Championship), so, if MNAX will be smaller than 7 then we will lose some variants already played at WC but we must try to keep all already played positions. For tournaments with only crazy participants it will possible to set NMAX=221 (although a standard renju set has not such many black stones).
"Bidding stage" – it is a good analogy!
Concerning a “non-general” rule for NMIN in some openings, here we have contradictory requirements: by Japanese requirement the player number two can not escape from some specific theory whereas by European requirement a player must have possibility to escape from boring sure-draw variants. I do not see a “general” way to separate “boring draw variants” form all theory. It is the problem of a convention; it depends on current development of the theory and can be reconsidered. Note that in talk Japanese sometimes proposed to prohibit d11 at high level tournaments at all. In my proposition of Extended Yusui Rule any previously played position can appear in a game but maybe after some “bidding” steps. Maybe, after some time it will be possible to introduce the common NMIN for all openings but now we must be very careful to avoid the loss of variants.
Concerning the similarity of the rules for NMAX=2 to RIF rules, we have in most part of RIF openings the advantage of black. So, this advantage will not change after any 4th move. So, the procedure will change but the positions and real possibilities will be the same. Only in openings with an advantage of white (i13, d13, i1) the new possibilities will be a bit wider due to non-optimal 4th moves.
|
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2009-09-10 14:49:19 |
If NMAX=7 seems to be too high then it is possible to use the next system:
To set NMAX=4 or NMAX=5 but to allow to make the first declaration higher than NMAX. In the last case the game will be played by Yamaguchi rules. It allows to keep all variants already played at WC. After some period and an accumulating of some knowledge it will be possible to increase NMAX.
|
| |
| Sushkov | 2009-09-10 23:01:36 |
A very interesting suggestion. Probably, it goes in the right direction.
In example II), if a conservative player thinks, that the resulting position in 5i is unfavourable for black, than he should throw away his conservatism and get an idea of all 4th moves, relevant with respect to NMAX, in the 13i opening. The same, probably, in all other openings. So, an "ignorance champion" has really little chances.
By the way, what can a conservative player do in 13d?
The magnitude of NMAX is a matter of discussion. In such openings, like 2i or 4i, there a lot of quite reasonably looking 4th moves, which have at least 7 winning (big advantage) 5th moves. To my taste, NMAX=9 would be better.
Ofcause, the problem here is that only one number NMAX serves for the whole set of openings, which have a large dynamic range for the the number of 5th moves. This will require involving into consideration many new unfamiliar 4th moves in the openings, traditionally strong for white.
But maybe it's not that bad in itself.
|
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2009-09-11 00:02:29 |
Vladimir, thank you for your interest and for your opinion.
I think that the most conservative line in d13 is to declare 3 5th moves taking in a view the move 4-i9. Here two 5th moves give an advantage to black (5-i7 and 5-j9) and two 5th moves go to well known *almost* equal positions: 5-i8 (shifted d12=i12) and 5-h6 (transfer into i10). But a conservative player must be ready that the opponent will declare 1, 2 or 3 5th moves wishing to play 4-i10, 4-g10, 4-f7 or 4-g7. Of course, a conservative player knows the moves 4-g8 and 4-g9.
|
| |
| Andry | 2009-09-14 02:26:23 |
I don`t think that NMAX is so important because I can`t see future for yamaguchi rule anyway. Because the WC already showed that there ain`t many variations that are interesting or even possible to play.
But what about changing Taraguchi from 5swaps to 6 swaps(or even7?) ? And the five 5th move rule also to seven 5th moves. With 6swaps it would be silly to put crazy 4th move because you should put 5th and 6th moves also and good players would find a good plan after 6th moves anyway.
|
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2009-09-14 03:35:18 |
Andry, thank you for your comment. It is not a problem to create a new opening rule. The hard problem is to accept good rules for WC after 2009 since there exist contradictory approaches.
By the way, could you estimate the next 6-move position? |
|
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2009-09-14 03:59:16 |
| Let me try to make some moves: |
|
| |
| Andry | 2009-09-14 06:04:23 |
| yeah I gues it would be too "crazy". Maybe creative players could put 5th and 6th move themselves after such 4th move but maybe not the best solution. Still it would be interesting to play test games with such rules. |
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2009-09-14 13:54:01 |
| Under Taraguchi rules after 4 I think 5 is the most optimal move. 5-g6,h6,h7 give a win to black, 5-i6 is interesting, other moves give advantage to white. 6 is strongest. So, this variant is actual even for Soosyrv rules. But for Soosyrv and Taraguchi rules the set of such positions is quite restricted, therefore it is possible to analyze all of them and to publish. In any case, I think it is very important to develop the theory of d13 and i13 until at least five 5th moves. Maybe after it Japanese players will be interested by new variants and will start to desire to play not by Yamaguchi. |
| |
|