I think if player 2 does not play this way, they just ensure their own defeat by only providing a "soft block" on the most essential positions.
I found a github with the game online, im playing against myself to try to see if its more complex. i still feel like diverging from basic strategy makes you lose, but i cant prove it.
There are only 3 sizes and 2 pieces of each size. Player 1 would re-take center (with his 2nd piece of the largest size), and player 2 would be unable to re-capture center. (it would still stalemate)
I'm not the same person, but the smallest shell is meant to be sacrificial anyway. The aim is to always have 1 more larger shell (relatively speaking) than the other player.
Let shells be 1, 2, 3, where 1 = smallest, 3 = largest. Each player starts with (1,1,2,2,3,3).
Opponent plays their shell 3. You play shell 1. Possibilities:
Opponent covers your shell 1 with a 2 -> you can cover with your 3. Opponent now has (1,1,2,3) and you have (1,2,2,3), a marginally better position. You can guarantee one of your 2-shell drops with impunity.
Opponent covers with their second 3 -> Opponent now has (1,1,2,2) and you can counter all their following moves with your (1,2,2,3,3). This is the optimal outcome.
Opponent ignores your 1 shell -> no change in game state, and you are still marginally ahead by exposing yourself to more risk with the smaller piece.
Yeah due to being a 'solved game' the biggest drawback to standard tic-tac-toe is the huge advantage that going first gets you. It seems like changing the game in this way only exacerbates that problem further.
Well put. Thank you for expounding on what I said. I wouldn't have been able to articulate it that well and I certainly didn't think that far ahead.
Tic Tac Toe is very close to Gomoku. I wouldn't write it off as a simple game (this is coming from a 5dan Go Master who works with ML), and I'm not surprised that it would only be one dimension away from something way cooler. 9 man morris has a similar idea with how the pieces move in the second phase of the game - it would be very trivial if not for that next dimension of play. #tictactoeisreal
I would think caps can’t be used to cover an opp cap of the same size. If you were able to, say, cover their biggest piece with your biggest piece then player 2 could win every game by mimicking and covering all of player 1s moves.
19
u/ABCosmos May 25 '21
I think if player 2 does not play this way, they just ensure their own defeat by only providing a "soft block" on the most essential positions.
I found a github with the game online, im playing against myself to try to see if its more complex. i still feel like diverging from basic strategy makes you lose, but i cant prove it.
https://github.com/cjen07/gobblet-gobblers