To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 3, 2017, 1:03 PM
I'm all for keeping ongoing games visible, especially for tournaments, that keeps them interesting for non-/ex-participants as well. And it adds to the social character of the site.
But I'm interested in hearing other voices of reason on the topic as well.
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 4, 2017, 3:33 AM
I'll agree that keeping ongoing games visible, including tournaments, does offer some value, as noted in the post above.
That said, I'm a believer that the integrity of the games is of primary importance. We recently had a situation where a creative high-level player decided to try a new approach to a standard line in the hopes of winning some games as player 2 against other high-level players.
This is a significant tactical approach - sweeps are rare among top tier players. Anyway, the player in question used this tactic simultaneously in multiple games each against 4 other high ranking players. The problem, of course, is that with the games visible, any of the opponents could have simply waited for someone else to "go first" and then duplicate the sequence (if it worked) or use something else (if it didn't).
I'm not suggesting that any of the players in question would intentionally use such a tactic, but the mere possibility is troubling, especially since I can't see how it would be technically breaking any rules (aside from perhaps an unwritten rule of general etiquette). But even if no intent is present, someone might simply stumble onto the situation accidentally and become influenced by what he has seen and cannot "un-see."
I think the potential for negative consequences outweighs the potential benefits. Besides, the games will be publicly available, in the database, as soon as they are completed.
One final thought - and this one of course depends on the programming difficulty - but perhaps the feature could be a toggle switch that each player can check a box for: "Keep this game private until completed." If either player checks that box, then the game is private until completed, but if neither player checks the box, then the game will be visible. In most of my games, I would have the box unchecked, because I wouldn't have a reason for it to be private. But in those rare cases in which I attempt something similar to what was described above, it would be nice to know that I would be able to shield the game, at least until it is complete - at which time any studious players could study and analyze it and use it themselves, if desired.
Just so there's no confusion - I'm not advocating that COMPLETED games be private, secret, or hidden, only that ONGOING games in progress be temporarily private.
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 4, 2017, 5:21 AM
I've been on both sides of the fence on this question, as initially when rainwolf brought it up I recalled that ongoing tournament games at Brainking are visible. However, this doesn't mean that Brainking's system is correct. I think that Dmitri's suggestion of having a box which either or both players can check or leave unchecked depending on whether or not they mind that the current game is visible to other players while it is in progress is preferable. How difficult it may be to code this is a separate question, of course. My reasoning is that non rated games can be made private while in progress (but show up anonymously in db searches once completed), but rated games can't and that (at least arguably) rated games are where the strength of innovations can be most effectively tested. Suppose one held a live tournament in which players could freely walk over to the board next door to see how "Tallie Resh's" latest innovation was working out and oh, hmmm that looks nice perhaps I can still direct my ongoing game in progress along those lines even though I planned to play the Boston, this whole hammer/wedge line thing looks interesting. It just wouldn't fly in a real tournament setting. Probably 95+% of my games (tournament or non) I wouldn't mind having viewed while in progress because I'm usually doing one or more of the following: 1. Playing something which doesn't diverge from games already in the database until after the mid game phase. 2. Trying something out which I've targeted for a specific player based on a weakness which I've found in their games in the database; therefore I'm unlikely to use it again or against another player. 3. Throwing out a novelty move fairly early on in hopes that a player won't take the time to find the trap before they play.
But occasionally, I do find something which looks good enough to try out on more than one player, perhaps one will find the correct line and the other will blunder. In that case, I'd like to play both of them simultaneously without either of them knowing the moves the other is making - at least until the possibility of error point has been passed by both players (sometimes this is quite late in the game). In the last scenario, having the option for a rated game not to be visible until it has been completed is the only reasonably sure way to know that one player isn't cribbing from the other. No system is perfect, they could be collaboratively deciding on the best move for the position at each move without my knowledge. But at least having the option to cloak ongoing games prevents the "can't unsee" scenario.
Message was edited by: watsu at Nov 4, 2017 5:32 AM
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 4, 2017, 11:38 AM
I'm not convinced.
The situation you describe would/could still occur, except it would occur out of public view. The most effective approach to such uncool behavior, to me, would be to call the offender out on this (directly, not necessarily in a public forum)) and proceed to not play them anymore should this continue.
In a live tournament, the privacy of an ongoing game was decided at the discretion of the opponents of that game, and, perhaps not so much in a speed tournament, the tactical advantage you had with a secret novelty move would last only as long as that game.
You mention the integrity of the game but I am puzzled as to what you mean by that. With the example you give I deduce that you mean you want to be sure you're playing your opponent and that he's not shadow playing with a different opponent. Does it include using an AI to find strong moves? Does it include the use of a database? For the latter we've had this discussion elsewhere already and not everyone agrees.
Weighing all that, it seems to me that the potential negative consequences affect the tactical advantage of an individual player in one or a few games. And it seems that the outweighed potential benefits is the social cohesion of this website and that "everyone else" is affected if you strip away the option of viewing ongoing games. To me, the scale tips the other way.
That being said, I will make the ability to hide a game from public view a subscriber's perk, like I did with the undo. Given the breadth of this work I can't give an ETA on when it will be finished and I still have to decide on the design of this feature. At first I thought I'd implement it as a switch when an invitation was posted, but I'm more leaning towards one-time hiding of individual games in progress.
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 4, 2017, 12:50 PM
I'll attempt to provide clarification and also ask some clarifying questions myself.
"The situation you describe would/could still occur, except it would occur out of public view."
I'm somewhat unclear on the meaning of this statement. I'm going to have to just use the actual example to add clarification.
The person who came up with the creative defense was Watsu. The four people he used the defense against were Myself, Brf, Ivans73, and Ksackett (At the time, before the Ivans73 vacation disaster, those were the 5 highest-rated active players on the site).
Winning ANY game as player 2 against ANY player from that group would be an accomplishment. Winning several or all of them would be an even greater accomplishment.
The chances of multiple wins are decreased significantly if the games are publicly available.
Now, when you said "the situation could still occur, except it would occur out of public view," are you referring to the possibility that the four above-mentioned players could communicate with one another about their games in progress and discover, without the games being publicly visible, that the situation of duplicate ongoing games exist? Sure, that's possible. I could be at lunch with ksackett and he says, "Man, Watsu has me tied up in knots with this weird new defense." And then perhaps I would say, "What a coincidence! Same with me" and then perhaps after comparing games in progress, we would see we were in an identical situation?
Sure, that's POSSIBLE, albeit rather unlikely, but just because that possibility exists, doesn't mean we should significantly INCREASE the possibility of such a thing occurring by needlessly making the games publicly visible.
I say "needlessly" because I'm still not seeing the reasoning for having the games publicly visible in the first place. How does hiding ongoing games diminish the social aspect of the website or the Pente community?
Back to the post to which I am replying:
"The most effective approach to such uncool behavior, to me, would be to call the offender out on this (directly, not necessarily in a public forum)) and proceed to not play them anymore should this continue."
And how exactly would anyone involved know that the uncool behavior had happened? As it turns out, Ivans73, kSackett, Brf and I all seem to have independently decided on different lines of attack against the unexpected defense. But what if it didn't happen that way? What if EVERYONE had made the same moves that I did? (I'm pretty sure I was the guinea pig and "went first.") How would Watsu know that the results were fair, and not obtained by mimicry of my game with him? He couldn't be sure. Once I became aware of the potential problem, I messaged Watsu. I was willing to explore possible solutions, such as attempting to coordinate everyone's moves so they would be simultaneous.
But, as it stands now, with games publicly visible, if we did see two or more people play the exact same lines in simultaneously ongoing games, we would just have to go on faith and people's reputation in determining whether any mimicry was involved. I would rather err on the side of safety and limit, to whatever extent possible, the likelihood and/or appearance of possible mimicking of games in progress.
"In a live tournament, the privacy of an ongoing game was decided at the discretion of the opponents of that game, and, perhaps not so much in a speed tournament, the tactical advantage you had with a secret novelty move would last only as long as that game. "
In a round-robin tournament, I think it's reasonable for me to not want my clever new line mimicked and used by others in the same round. If it were a live round robin tournament, I would consider making my table private if I had any reason to believe that another player in the round were copying my moves in an ongoing game. And ideally, in a live tournament with a round robin structure, the games would be played as close together as possible, to limit such things.
But. We're not talking about a live tournament here, so why are we suggesting constraining ourselves by the limitations of live play? As I said, ideally, in a live tournament, all the games are played at the same time (like we did in Oklahoma City in 2003 and Vegas in 2004), which would make this a non-issue. As Watsu said, you can't walk around in an Over-the-board in-person chess or Pente tournament to see what other players are doing and then mimic their opening lines.
"You mention the integrity of the game but I am puzzled as to what you mean by that."
Hopefully, the specific example I gave above clarifies this. I was concerned that my original example, by omitting the actual names involved, would be too vague and convoluted to get my point across, but I wanted to try it that way first, to avoid mentioning specific players if at all possible.
"Does it include using an AI to find strong moves?"
Of Course. Using computer AI software to suggest moves in a specific position for a game-in-progress is a blatant violation of the rules of turn-based play. Obviously there is no way to stop people from doing it, but that doesn't change the validity, or lack thereof, of doing so. Using a computer AI to make a specific move in a specific position is pretty much the only thing NOT allowed in turn-based play. (Well, not the only thing, but the only thing that doesn't involve another human. Obviously it would be unethical for someone to message some other high-rated player and say, "Look at my current game and tell me what move to make."
"Does it include the use of a database?"
Of course not. It is assumed that turn-based games can be played with the help of a games database. Some people have stated that they don't personally use the database, and that's their prerogative, just as it's other players' prerogative to use the database. It's no different than a chess player using a chess book or database to ensure that he is staying within the Sicilian defense or Queens gambit declined or whatever defense he is using.
None of this AI or database discussion is germane to the topic at hand. If we have a turn-based round robin tournament with all games publicly visible, what's to stop any player in the tournament from waiting as long as possible to make his moves and then just copying the moves of one of the top players in the tournament?
"Weighing all that, it seems to me that the potential negative consequences affect the tactical advantage of an individual player in one or a few games."
Exactly my point. This would not be a problem in most games, and as such, most games would be voluntarily made public, as Watsu explained in his above post. In a tournament, I would likely unshield my games once I was reasonably certain they had passed the stage of "opening book" and unlikely to be an exact duplicate of other games in progress.
"And it seems that the outweighed potential benefits is the social cohesion of this website and that "everyone else" is affected if you strip away the option of viewing ongoing games"
I feel as though I'm missing something here. Maybe if I better understood this point, I would better understand the concern. What social cohesion is being placed at risk by shielding certain games from public view? From my perspective, I'm not seeing a lot of social cohesion, and what social cohesion I do see, doesn't necessarily arise from viewing games in progress.
I've had positive interactions with most of the players I've played here in the last couple months, but those have arisen from in-game discussion or post-game discussion, not from discussing 3rd-party games in progress. (also, when I said "most," I didn't mean to imply I've had any negative interactions, rather, that some opponents aren't as talkative as others, and thus, I've interacted by discussion with some players more than others.)
I'm all for increasing the social cohesion and social interaction of this site. I fondly remember the days of 2001-2004, when there would be 10 to 20 people each night logged in, some playing, some watching, some chatting with players and viewers about life and other topics unrelated to Pente. There were daily posts in the forums. Games and positions were discussed and analyzed.
All of this can happen again, but I do not see why we need publicly available games to do so. I'm always willing to discuss strategy and analysis. If someone asks me a question, I respond. I look for new forum posts every day and usually respond (But it's not uncommon for days or longer to go by without any new forum posts). I've also sat in the real-time game room for hours on end, waiting for anyone to join me, and so far, only one player has. Maybe one other player suggested a game, but I wasn't at the computer and at the time and he was gone by the time I returned.
And it's actually very uncommon for a player to ask a question about a game. This surprises me. I had a game against Ivans73 where the two of us reviewed what went wrong, and maybe one or two other similar discussions have occurred. But, as I said, it's rare. The player who asked the most strategic questions of me was someone I wasn't even playing - I had sent him an invite and noticed he had not replied, so I messaged him asking if he was trying to limit his games in progress, and he said yes, he was focusing on one game at a time, but then asked me several questions about general Pente strategy.
If any opponent were to ask me, after a game, "What do you think of my nth move," or, "If I had played this different 12th move, do you think it would have been a win," or "On which move do you think this game went wrong," I'd certainly be willing to do my best to answer. (In some cases the answer might be "I'm not sure," which could lead to interesting analysis discussions.
But, as I said, these questions and discussions are rare. I hope I haven't done anything to give the impression that I'm not approachable. And from conversations I've had with some other players, they'd be equally willing to engage in such discussion and analysis.
This ended up being a much longer post than I intended; in summary, I strongly support the idea of increasing and preserving social cohesion here; I'm just not entirely clear on what that has to do with shielding games in progress.
Message was edited by: dmitriking at Nov 4, 2017 12:52 PM
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 4, 2017, 1:26 PM
I have misread your example because the behavior I thought you mentioned would be the following: me playing a set against you and brf simultaneously where I'd copy brf's P2 moves in a game where I'm P2 against you. This would still be possible in a tournament where the games are hidden.
I alternatingly read in your posts that you advocate shielding all or some games in progress, so if it appears I am railing against something, it's certainly the former, and I can find myself agreeing with the latter, allowing subscribers to hide games on a per-game basis.
To me, visible ongoing games on one's profile adds to the social aspect of the site. brf, for example, has a nice pace of playing where I can go view a game in progress and be baffled with his moves until that sweet aha-moment where I see sense in his play. I spend more time watching/revisiting an interesting ongoing game than dig them up from the database. Shielding certain games by choice is no harm, but shielding all ongoing games in progress from others is a step back from socializing this place a bit more.
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 4, 2017, 11:11 PM
> To me, visible ongoing games on one's profile adds to > the social aspect of the site. brf, for example, has > a nice pace of playing where I can go view a game in > progress and be baffled with his moves until that > sweet aha-moment where I see sense in his play. I > spend more time watching/revisiting an interesting > ongoing game than dig them up from the database. > Shielding certain games by choice is no harm, but > shielding all ongoing games in progress from others > is a step back from socializing this place a bit more.
I understand now; thank you for the example.
(A useful note for everyone involved in forum discussions - in this discussion, both Rainwolf and I weren't entirely clear on what we were each saying, and in both cases, a specific example helped clarify the intended meaning)
The option to shield a game is much appreciated, and as always, I (and I'm sure others as well) appreciated your hands-on approach to running the site and your willingness to seek input from players.
Most likely, the shield option will be used sparingly; at the moment I think i have 35 games going and none of them have any reason for me to shield them.
Getting back to your Brf example - I had never thought of it that way, but your example makes sense; I have a few of my own games going right now where I'm waiting to discover the "Aha" move for myself . Hopefully I find it! (So, if anyone is following my games and wondering when I'm going to pull the rabbit out of the hat in one of them, it's possible I haven't figured it out yet either).
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 4, 2017, 11:37 PM
I also miss the old days on this site; a lot of us would spend hours in a game room with sometimes only occasional games going. Some analysis, some games, some life discussions, etc. as Dmitri described. Forum posts are a good way to learn/teach but there can be a tendency for information dump in some of them and they aren't as quickly responsive as sitting over an unrated board and working out optimal play for both sides in a tricky position. I'm glad to hear rainwolf's perspective on how the games in progress boards help him and the site, too, as this wasn't something I had understood prior to now.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Posts:
8
Registered:
Nov 28, 2015
From:
Kansas
Age:
56
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 6, 2017, 6:44 AM
Hello all!
Much of the problem with viewing others games during turn-based tournaments, drawing of sets between top players, and the ethics behind looking at the database during games in general could be avoided by permanently changing the opening rules of Pente to allow for much more complex variations.
Why not have the opening rules of DPente be the solution to Pente's problems? In my long hiatus I was surprised that it never caught on. The opening is easy enough for most novices to understand but it creates enough complexity to keep top players interested for a very long time. Such openings could even include stones near the edge of the board.
For example: Would you swap or not after: 1. K10 L9 2. S10 P11 ? I did little to no analysis on the position but at a glance I think it would not be an easy choice.
It would be interesting to see games like this fill up the database.
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 6, 2017, 10:33 PM
> Why not have the opening rules of DPente be the > solution to Pente's problems? In my long hiatus I > was surprised that it never caught on. The opening > is easy enough for most novices to understand but it > creates enough complexity to keep top players > interested for a very long time. Such openings could > even include stones near the edge of the board. > > For example: Would you swap or not after: > 1. K10 L9 2. S10 P11 ? I did little to no analysis > on the position but at a glance I think it would not > be an easy choice. > > It would be interesting to see games like this fill > up the database. > > > Gary
Hi Gary, good to have you back.
You make an interesting point, especially with regard to balance. In my response, I will include an examination the different variations, including D-Pente. (I've been thinking of writing a brief summary of my thoughts on the pros and cons of each variant, so this is good timing). I'm not including gomoku (no captures and no restriction, seems like it is a forced win for player 1) or connect 6 (no captures, and two stones placed on each turn).
I'll start with a general reply, which will also include the specific example of D-Pente, since that's the one you suggested. In general, I think the main reason Pente is still the most popular version are the obvious facts that it is the original and most well-known. Additionally though, the existence of several different variants make it less likely that any one of those variants will catch on strongly. Players looking for an alternative to Pente have 5 variations to choose from: D-Pente, G-Pente, Poof-Pente, Boat-Pente, and Keryo-pente. (additionally, there's a hybrid variation, D-Keryo Pente).
On top of that, more hybrid versions have been explored, such as boat-poof pente, or some combination of boat and poof pente with a stone handicap for player 1. Furthermore, one or more of these variations could be added to Keryo Pente, such as poof Keryo, Boat Keryo, and so on. I've certainly played a few Keryo games in which I thought, "how fascinating would this be if it were boat or poof?"
So, the attention of the regular players is somewhat split among the variants. Just off the top of my head, I know that Watsu has mainly focused on Poof-Pente (not surprisingly ) and Boat Pente (Also not surprising, since it's similar to Poof Pente in that the goal is to find common lines for player 1 that fall because of the rule adjustments). He's done a great deal of work over the years exploring the viability of these versions as a more balanced version of pente. Myself, during my recent return to Pente, I've been focused more on Keryo Pente. One player here seems to have spent some time on D-Keryo Pente, finding a position he can play well from either side. I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all; rather, I'm just making the point that when three high-volume players are each focused on different variants, it's less likely that any one particular variant will become prominent. Again, I'm not saying that is a bad thing. I like all of the above-mentioned variants, though some more than others.
D-Pente is possibly the most balanced, in that the person offering the swap stands to get crushed if he offers a position that one side has a strong advantage with. Still, D-Pente will favor those who like to use the database to study, and those who have a strong knowledge of opening book for regular pente. It's not required to set up an unusual position for the swap offer, which means that players with a medium level of experience might find themselves facing a standard opening book position that the other player can win with either side. Along similar lines, being long-term successful in D-Pente probably requires extensively studying one or more swap positions to the point of being able to play it well from either side. That's a daunting task, and one I'm not really up for at the moment. I would be at a significant disadvantage in D-Pente against anyone who has spent time analyzing a specific swap position, especially if it's not a "standard" position. Again, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and in the long run maybe it's a good thing, but for the time being, it's one reason I don't play a lot of D-Pente. The few times I do play D-Pente, I usually star blankly at the screen for awhile, unsure of which swap position to offer. I haven't come up with anything creative yet.
G-Pente is interesting, but I haven't spent a lot of time with it. It seems, from my limited research, that player 1 should still win, and that even more than regular Pente, the game favors database/research players. The non-axis moves still win, which means against a top-level player, the medium tier players will still struggle as player 2, but will find themselves having a more difficult time as player 1 because they cannot play the lines they are used to. Though the intent of G-Pente is to make a more balanced game, many players might find themselves falling to an early onslaught of "VCT" (Victory by Continuous threat) even more often than in regular Pente.
Poof and Boat Pente are interesting, but not my favorite. They're fun to play around with, though I should note that in my very limited experience, I've found that the poof and boat rules seem to have hampered my efforts as player 2 just as often as when I'm player 1. I'm also not sure how I feel about the co-linear capture-Poof situation. In general, player 1 still seems to win, even with the Boat or Poof restriction. That's not meant to be dismissive of either variant. Watsu had said that one of his goals in studying those two games is to find ways to make one particular line, the wedge, more difficult for player 1 or maybe even show that it's a loss for player 1, so that player 1 would need to find a different second move in response to L9.
And then there's Keryo Pente. This is my favorite, at the moment, for several reasons. I find it more fun and interesting. And, I think it's more balanced. On that second point, I could be mistaken, since I'm operating with a small sample size, both in terms of my own number of games and the total number of players actively playing Keryo Pente regularly. In the long run, I'm assuming player 1 still has the advantage, and for the time being, I certainly would rather be player 1 (even though I actually have the same record as player 1 as I do as player 2). One highly plausible reason I haven't seen imbalance yet is that opening book is not yet well-defined, and there is very little information in the database. Unlike Pente (which has numerous games from Brain King, IYT, and PBeM), Keryo Pente games only appear in the database if they were played on this site, and, before 2008 (appproximately?), this site was entirely real-time; so there's even less of a databank of turn-based Keryo Pente to study.
So, in the long-run, maybe Keryo Pente is just as imbalanced as Pente; I don't know. I feel like player 1 has less of an advantage, for a few reasons: 1) A tria, once blocked, must be extended to a 4, otherwise all 3 stones will be captured. And, the extension must be a straight extension, not a split extension, unless one wishes to sacrifice the three stones. Those differences right there make it more important to proceed carefully in the early stages. In Keryo Pente more so than in regular Pente, it's often correct to use an additional set-up move or two before launching an attack of level-3 threats. As such, the back-and-forth of set-up moves and counter moves continues longer in Keryo Pente than regular Pente (sometimes, not always).
Additionally, a string of level 3 threats is much more likely to run into trouble in Keryo-Pente, and the recapture scenarios are far more dangerous than in regular Pente. Also, during a capture scenario, it's more likely for a defensive double-capture to be set up than in regular Pente, and, if one is set up, it's more likely to be an effective double capture since it is more likely to remove a keystone. Of course, these factors affect player 2 also, but I find they are more likely to affect player 1, since player 1 is the one usually on the immediate attack. They give player 2 additional ways to fight back. A double 3 is less likely to be an immediate win in Keryo Pente than in Pente. Also, a split 3 cannot simply be blocked to gain a position of advantage. Though not overly common in regular Pente, player 1 can make a split 3, then when the player 2 plays inside it (thus threatening a capture), player 1 can block the capture, gaining an advantage in that he created a keystone and now has two different extension options for immediate or future use. This won't work in Keryo Pente, since all 3 stones would immediately captured by the defender. Again, this affects both players, not just player 1, but I think it's more likely to slow down player 1 than player 2.
Not to be forgotten, there's also D-Keryo Pente, which I find fun and interesting, but I believe is better suited for a time when opening book for Keryo Pente is more developed and we've determined that player 1 does, in fact, have a significant advantage.
Well, I had planned this to be a somewhat brief summary, but as is usually the case when I start writing about something, I have failed. Anyway, there you have it. Thoughts? Suggestions? Feedback?
Re: To spectate or not to spectate
Posted:
Nov 6, 2017, 10:41 PM
> For example: Would you swap or not after: > 1. K10 L9 2. S10 P11 ? I did little to no analysis > on the position but at a glance I think it would not > be an easy choice. > > It would be interesting to see games like this fill > up the database. > > > Gary
I think I see what you're doing here. I made a similar (albeit ineffective) suggestion to Watsu a few weeks ago. I said, "I don't like offering the swap, so I could just put a stone at each corner and offer that." Watsu immediately pointed out that my opponent would basically then be playing as player 1 but without the opening restriction.
So, in this case (The one you included in your post), I would just take the position as is, and proceed as usual with standard P1 lines, particularly G10, since it is unlikely to reach those stones on S and P.
I suppose the question is, "how close do the seemingly distant S and P stones have to be before they interfere with enough of player 1's lines that it becomes a disadvantage to take player 1 in the swap?"
I certainly think they'd have to be closer than S and P, but I could be wrong. If player 1 were to respond with N10 and player 2 went with the wedge defense, it's quite possible the S and P stones would come into play. I suppose this partly depends on how willing someone is to play 2. G10 instead of 2. N10.
. Hopefully I find it! (So, if anyone is following my games and wondering when I'm going to pull the rabbit out of the hat in one of them, it's possible I haven't figured it out yet either).