What is this move? (Top Level huge blunder)

[NandoRondelli]

So, recently I was going through some top level replays, and I found a move that made absolutely no sense to me. The winning player (player 1) was +900ELO (didn't even know they exist) and the player who lost (and made the huge blunder) was 660ELO (player 2), so both very strong players.

Fourth round, player 2 was winning by a few points and then made this move that shocked me. The move even had 3 redos (meaning they picked up the tile three times before confirming)

First image, is player 2 turn. I figured they could maybe take 3 yellow and place it on fourth row. Even if player 1 blocks by taking two yellow, it seems ok going into last round. Or even place it on fifth row, giving player 1 the option to let they complete yellow on fifth row or pick up 3 red on fourth row and have a nice shot at getting a second column in the end of the game.




But then player 2 takes 1 Blue and place it on fifth row!




What is this? Even if trying to go 5-of-a-kind Blue, it would be very risky, and it also gives 5 Yellow to player 1 for free. And also, there is this basic counting thing in Azul where, if you opponent picks up 6 tiles of a color (filling, for example, rows 1, 2 and 3), it is impossible to make 5-of-a-kind in five rounds.

After player 1 takes the five yellow tiles, player 2 even takes 1 White tile on 3rd row, practically giving a second column to player 1.




I'm floating around 450-530 ELO currently and, while I know these players are much stronger than me, i really can't see the point of these moves, specially the first one. Am I missing some deeper understanding of the game, or is it just an amazing blunder by a 650+ELO player who had player the game in a perfectly reasonable way up until this move?

[Palini]

And that's probably how you get to an ELO of 900... It's sad, but it probably happens all the time.

[cigma]

And also, there is this basic counting thing in Azul where, if you opponent picks up 6 tiles of a color (filling, for example, rows 1, 2 and 3), it is impossible to make 5-of-a-kind in five rounds.

You are perfectly right (in a 2 player game) as there are only 20 tiles of each color, but I never thought about that

Maybe the second player didn't either? Indeed the refilling of the bag seems to be difficult to understand to some players, if they don't know the physical game, as you can see in the discussion here: https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29370

If we assume that the second player didn't count the tiles, these turns make some sense to me. By taking the Blue tile they might try to make 5-of-a-kind Blue. And by picking the white tile they might try to hinder their opponent to score a 5-of-a-kind White. But of course this is just my interpretation of these turns.

As you said, this player picked up the tiles three times, so they might just have had a bad day. And I am sure I'd feel stressed to play against the first ranked player and do some stupid things

[Priptonite]

I would take three yellow as well. It forces the opponent to defend by either going -4 or leaving row 4/5 unfinished heading into the last round. It also lets you complete the row the following round for 5-7 points. The downside if that you are likely going to end up taking 3 red, which is maybe what this player wanted to avoid?

If you do want to take the blue, I think it should go on the floor line, not row 5.

[euklid314]

Lets face it - the 2nd player had no good moves. If he takes 3 yellow and his opponent takes 2 yellows then he has last move and will have to take 3 reds also.

Ending 4th round with halffinished 5th and 4th row with these 3 yellow and 3 red is a sure way to lose the game since the 2nd player has no flexibility in the final round at all and his floor will most likely be fully filled in the 5th round.

Thus I understand that he took 1 blue - a move that guarantees that he does not end up with last move in the 4th round. Surely putting blue on the floor would have been better. And he is then somewhat forced to take the reds although he does not need or like them.

I think the 2nd player was in a lost position and after he tried out several options that he all didn't like he somewhat gave up and did not try to optimize his minimal winning chances for last round. Kind of: "Why should I invest a lot of my energy to increase my winning chances from 0.5% to 1% when I will lose anyway".

That is my personal interpretation of what happened this game. Even if the judgement of the 2nd player should have been wrong (I do not think so) - I see nothing fishy here.

[NandoRondelli]

Lets face it - the 2nd player had no good moves. If he takes 3 yellow and his opponent takes 2 yellows then he has last move and will have to take 3 reds also.

Ending 4th round with halffinished 5th and 4th row with these 3 yellow and 3 red is a sure way to lose the game since the 2nd player has no flexibility in the final round at all and his floor will most likely be fully filled in the 5th round.

Thus I understand that he took 1 blue - a move that guarantees that he does not end up with last move in the 4th round. Surely putting blue on the floor would have been better. And he is then somewhat forced to take the reds although he does not need or like them.

I think the 2nd player was in a lost position and after he tried out several options that he all didn't like he somewhat gave up and did not try to optimize his minimal winning chances for last round. Kind of: "Why should I invest a lot of my energy to increase my winning chances from 0.5% to 1% when I will lose anyway".

That is my personal interpretation of what happened this game. Even if the judgement of the 2nd player should have been wrong (I do not think so) - I see nothing fishy here.

Putting blue on the floor would be better indeed. Half-finished rows can be dangerous going into final round, but 2nd player would play first on last round, and the half-finished rows would be colors already placed on first three rows (thus avoiding the "competing against yourself" thing, when you want the same color for multiple rows)

Also, player 1 wants to place yellow on 3rd row last round, so player 2 entering last round with yellow on s 5th row could be extra incentive to take those yellow tiles away from player 1.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to say there's cheating/kingmaking involved by any means, I just thought the decision was so bad that maybe I was missing something.

[Propaganda_Panda]

Don't think you're missing something. Not like I am the ultimate authority, but as someone who is currently ranked within the top 10, this just looks like an egregious blunder to me. Even very strong players can miscount or overlook simple things, we are all only human after all.

[Priptonite]

Unrelated to this scenario but I like this style post. I’m surprised we don’t see more “what would you do” type posts. I guess the forums don’t get much action in general.

[self_evident2]

I'm self_evident2(Player1 of this topic) and i think my opponent did make huge blunder, and I don't know why he did that, maybe because this was a turn-based game where he might have forgotten what to do after a long break? I also saw @Palini putting up some accusations. It does seem a little bit suspicious, but it's just not the case.

[self_evident2]

The correct play is definitely 3 yellows on row 4. The value of 4 yellows is way more than the last move of this round.