Play by Play Analysis Thread

Forum rules
Please DO NOT POST BUGS on this forum. Please report (and vote) bugs on : https://boardgamearena.com/#!bugs
T72on1
Posts: 671
Joined: 09 October 2019, 12:18

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by T72on1 »

Ok Ted2 it is :)
User avatar
gurthbruins
Posts: 33
Joined: 20 August 2017, 16:38

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by gurthbruins »

whb has answered our 7.Ted2 with 8.Lb67(-6).(The -6 indicates we are 6 points behind on the scoreboard).
I think 9.Ia09(-3) would give us a clear win:
If he plays now in the top area he can hardly do better than 10.Sd09(-2) which finishes the top area , then we play 11.Sab2(+0) leaving nothing for him but further loss.
If he plays in the bottom area, e.g. 10.Zab3(-5), then 11.Ief0(-2), 12.Tc90(-2), 13.Tb45 wins, or 12. Ibc4(-1), 13.Jd90 or any plus-one-point move in the top area will win. We must NOT play the tempting 11.Ze09(-1) because then he would win the tie with Ibc4.
T72on1
Posts: 671
Joined: 09 October 2019, 12:18

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by T72on1 »

Since I'm still not sure about the notations you guys use ... you mean this move, right?

Image

Seems good yes.

What about this one:

Image

Leaves 7 certain points at the top, so WHB needs either 1 at the bottom, blocking out all our other options there and winning on a tie, or take 2. In both cases he cannot prevent us from getting points as well, leading to victory for us.
User avatar
csaphiro
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 June 2020, 02:16

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by csaphiro »

I think that’s the proposed first move, yes. I also think it’s a good one.
For the proposed T move (Tbc9, maybe) it guarantees only 4, not 7, as whatshisbucket can respond with an L to take 2O,1X and protect the remaining O at the top. I think with the current notation that would be something like Lde0 or Jde0?

I also agree the notation is often less than clear. Especially if you happen to be dyslexic like me, order of almost random letters mattering or puzzling out whether a red or blue piece is L/J or S/Z takes a fair amount of effort. Often I can only figure out where a piece is meant to go based on whose turn it’s supposed to be, and the assumption that no one is suggesting covering their own symbol on purpose.
I propose instead we could simply list the covered squares, just like we select each square when playing. Perhaps simplified slightly so:
The yellow I proposed by gurthbruins would be: a70 or a7-0 or a7890 or similar.
The green T proposed by T72on1 would be: c80b9 or b9c80 or c0-8b9 or c890b9 or similar.
The red L they both play off of would be something like: bd7b6 or d-b7b6 or bcd7b6 or similar.
The only blue S on the board could be any number of combinations along the lines of: fg2gh3 or f2g23h3 or gf2gh3 etc.
The only rule regarding ordering that I’ve followed for this notation is that letters always come before the numbers for a square. When a new letter appears, the old numbers no longer apply. This because numbers and letters never flip with each other in my dyslexia.
User avatar
gurthbruins
Posts: 33
Joined: 20 August 2017, 16:38

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by gurthbruins »

Firstly, regarding notation: I think it is essential to have some notation. If the system I proposed is thought too difficult by csaphiro alone (in fact Cheery Dog and T72on1 are also not happy with it) then I am indeed grateful to csaphiro for finding a system that he would be happy with. I am only too happy to go along with him and will use his system starting right now.
My analysis of T72on1's proposed move 9.Tb9c890(-6) (please note all moves by X are odd numbered, starting from the first move 1.whatever.);
10.Sab3bc2(-8), 11.Sde9ef0(-4),12.Ib-e4(-3), 13.1a7-0(+0)... we win, or
10. Ia3-6(-4), 11.Sde9ef0(+0), 12.Lb123c1(-1), 13.I wins... and I don't see that O can do better anywhere... so I think 9.Tb9c890 is also good.
Hey, know what? I prefer this system of notation! It IS easier, and having to type more characters is no sweat really!
(I DID also look at 10.Ld0e890(-5), 11.Sab3bc2(-3) and now O can't save a7-0 plus another one or two, so loses by more than a tie.)
User avatar
Cheery Dog
Posts: 221
Joined: 28 January 2017, 04:08

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by Cheery Dog »

The notations are probably fine, it just takes some time to get used to, and I';d like to attempt to remain consistent, but either way I think we should be able to win this game with both of the previous proposed moves

I'd like to personally propose a Td89 (or I think listing squares is Tc9d89e9).
I feel like it gives the same benefits to the other T placement, but better as it removes more O now.
User avatar
gurthbruins
Posts: 33
Joined: 20 August 2017, 16:38

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by gurthbruins »

I think Cheery Dog's idea 7.Tc9d89e9(-4) is much better than the other moves found so far - it will win by more than a tie-break.
Mainly because the 0's at e,f,h0 are now unsaveable.
e.g. 8.Sab3bc2(-6), 9.Ia7-0(-3), 10.Ib-e4(-2), 11. Ie-h0(+1) END.
T72on1
Posts: 671
Joined: 09 October 2019, 12:18

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by T72on1 »

Agreed. Much better. Both the notation and Cheery Dog's move :D .
T72on1
Posts: 671
Joined: 09 October 2019, 12:18

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by T72on1 »

Next move has been made. Not much tactics involved now anymore. Just final mop up.

Good team effort btw :) .
T72on1
Posts: 671
Joined: 09 October 2019, 12:18

Re: Play by Play Analysis Thread

Post by T72on1 »

Ok game is over. Where do we go from here?
Post Reply

Return to “Battle of LITS”