|
| "dictionary of Yamaguchi rule" | 2008-02-23 00:51:35 |
By the proposition of Ando I try to give a "dictionary" of Yamaguchi rule. This is only first approach in this direction. If you think that I am not correct then please send your comments. I plan to edit this topic.
For the economy of time I do not distinguish the concepts "advantage" and ... |
| Stefan Karlsson | 2008-02-24 02:09:42 |
| Great job! This kind of work and discussion regarding "Yamaguchi-rule" we really need! / Stefan |
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2008-02-24 05:33:35 |
| Thank you, Stefan! I am looking forward to see your contribution :) |
| |
| Aivo Oll | 2008-02-26 05:45:19 |
| Interestingly enough, on the Renjuclass forum there is nothing mentioned about if the 5th moves can or can not be symmetrical. The same occurs with Taraguchi rules. This causes a lot more confusion than might have thought. I know for a fact that last year in Helsinki open with Taraguchi rules black was allowed to put 5 5th moves anywhere on the board, symmetrical ones included. So is it allowed to put symmetrical 5th moves in Yamaguchi, Taraguchi? Even on this site it is not mentioned eith RIF rules and there is even clearly stated: "The two black stones can be placed anywhere on the board" :) This mistake should be corrected otherwise who can tell me that I can not put symmetrical moves if there is written that I can place them anywhere on board. On this page http://renju.se/rif/r1rulhis.htm it was written: "The two moves must be equal in all respects if you look to the situation in the center of the board." I think it should be MUST NOT be equal.. This is a problem since some gaming sites have copied this text, e.g. http://www.setupgroup.com/xo/renju.php :) Someone should correct it. |
| |
| Aivo Oll | 2008-02-26 05:53:17 |
http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv/renju.html Is written: "The two moves made must be asymetrical in at least one aspect except relative distance from the edge of the board.
What I read from this that for example, in D4 I can play as 5th moves both H10 and J7, because J7 is with a shift. Correct me if I am wrong. |
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2008-02-26 07:08:29 |
Yamaguchi rules are generalization of RIF rules. In RIF rules symmetric moves are not allowed. So, symmetric moves are not allowed in Yamaguchi rules too.
PBeM server and ORC game center do not allow symmetric moves. Try it in games against yourself. |
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2008-02-26 07:18:07 |
"The two moves made must be asymetrical in at least one aspect except relative distance from the edge of the board."
In this sentence the word "except" means that the distance from the edge is not taken in a view when a symmetry is detected.Indeed, it seems that this sentence is not quite clear.
|
| |
| Ando Meritee | 2008-02-26 09:46:52 |
In my understanding, the symmetrical 5th moves are not allowed under any opening rules. Perhaps just because it is like a common sense, and because new rules are in testing phase, the new rule definitions have not been carefully written yet.
But it is good that the 5th move issue is pointed out. It will help make clearer analyses later. |
| |
| Jussi Ikonen | 2008-02-27 00:13:48 |
Taraguchi rule as it was announced as a candidate Rule 4, was introduced in renjuclass forum: http://renjuclass.com/cgi-bin/forum/topic.cgi?forum=25&topic=5&show=25
In this topic it clearly says: "- The black player puts five 5th moves anywhere on board."
So far all tournaments played with taraguchi rule in Finland (not only the last Helsinki Open) have been played according to this description. In other words the 5 fifth moves have been played anywhere on the board.
If it is so that symmetrical fifth moves are not allowed, then in many symmetrical situations (D8 opening for instance) the game changes quite a bit.
In my opinion the rule should stay so that five stones can be played at the board regardless of symmetrical situations.
|
| |
| Ando Meritee | 2008-02-27 17:55:33 |
I never thought of this issue before, because really it was very obvious to me that symmetric 5th moves are not allowed under any rule.
Symmetric moves are not a actual "choice" for opponent. Imagine, d8 opening, with 4-h6, you can put 4 symmetric 5th moves there while it is actually just 1 move. So depending on pattern, the five 5th move would sometimes be 5 unique situations, sometimes only 2 unique choices. In my opinion, it is not a good sign.
The fact that the symmetry rule was not included to proposal was pretty much because it was too obvious for many people that 5th should not be symmetrical.
For example, I was the publisher of the Rules list of 32 rules while I was the chairman of RIF rules commission, I typed into Forum myself, while I am the believer that 5th should not be symmetrical.
While the rule was in discussion phase, nobody really bothered to check the details and spelling of each proposal. |
| |
| Ando Meritee | 2008-02-27 18:13:33 |
Maybe it is possible to make 2 different proposals for Taraguchi rule then. And we can see which version becomes more popular. I think it is no problem to choose either one of the versions. The biggest issue is the misunderstanding for now - some believe 5th moves can be played as symmetrical moves, while some others think otherwise.
The Yamaguchi rule does not accept symmetric 5th moves, and I remember when the mixture of Taraguchi rule was proposed in Tallinn in 1995, the idea was to combine the Tarannikov rule with Yamaguchi "many 5th". Maybe already then, different people understood the new rule differently. |
| |
| Ando Meritee | 2008-02-28 17:19:20 |
| Speaking of Yamaguchi rule dictionary, I am curious, which five 5th moves are possible in this variant of 4-j8? I have not made many analyses about it yet, but it seems a bit stronger 4th move than 4-i10 at the first look. According to old theory, the standard 5th moves here are 5-i7, 5-k7, 5-h10. What would be the two other 5th moves? Lets discuss it, will be exciting. |
|
| |
| Alexander Zhikharev | 2008-02-28 17:42:04 |
| Seems 5.H9 is possible. What is the best white move after that 5th? |
| |
| Ando Meritee | 2008-02-28 17:46:44 |
| My first improvised try on 5-h9: |
|
| |
| Alexander Zhikharev | 2008-02-28 17:58:49 |
| I analyzed only 8.G9 9.F8, black is fine seems, your 8th I haven't analyzed yet. |
| |
| Alexander Zhikharev | 2008-02-28 20:48:04 |
| Another 5th |
|
| |
| Alexander Zhikharev | 2008-02-28 20:50:25 |
| . |
|
| |
| Alexander Zhikharev | 2008-02-28 20:52:58 |
| . |
|
| |
| Ando Meritee | 2008-02-28 22:31:55 |
| This 5th move is interesting. It seems it would also work in i2 opening then. |
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2008-02-28 23:37:55 |
| My estimations for 4.j8 in i4: |
|
| |
| Yuriy Tarannikov | 2008-02-28 23:46:13 |
5-h10,i7,k7 - advantage of black
5-h9,i10,i6 - small advantage of black
5-k9,k8,j9 - equal
(5.i6 is possible from i8 too; if 6.k8 then 7.k7)
So, 4.j8 seems to be worse than 4.i10 in i4(6) (small advantage of black instead of small advantage of white). At the same time, 4.j8 seems to be better than 4.i10 in i4(5) (small advantage of black instead of advantage of black). |
| |
|