Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009, 5:16 PM
I offer this post with some trepidation as a lowly blue player...
With VCT and VCF the word 'victory' is the key word surely though. To counter s3v3n's point. If Victory by Consecutive Threes is a victory then the opponent did not have an opportunity to do anything about it. However this seems somewhat awkward as a definition because threes are blockable unless they are concurrent rather than consecutive. So perhaps this should be Victory by Concurrent Threes?
At any rate in order for Victory to occur, one of these threes must turn into a four and then a five which means that the victory isn't achieved through consecutive three's anyway (being pedantic I know).
So I think that the definition provided by s3v3n, although supported by google search, is possibly confusing and even misleading. I think I prefer zoey's definition.
Posts:
186
Registered:
Aug 15, 2003
From:
Krakow / Poland Home page
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009, 5:43 PM
yeah, i expected that someone will say sth like that. of course you are right. i did a mental shortcut, because rather than show definitions i wanted to point out what are differences between VCT and VCF . when you think you have a VCT , you need to check out if opponent doesn't have VCF and when you have VCF there is no need to do that.
of course in full-correct VCT opponent doesn't have a win by VCF, according to definition. i hope that now everything is clear..
Posts:
260
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Maryland
Age:
53 Home page
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 10, 2009, 6:42 AM
János Wágner and István Virág wrote a note "SOLVING RENJU" in International Computer Games Association Journal March 2001. They included these definitions.
VCF: This acronym means: Victory by Consecutive Fours. A win that results from making fours one after another. VCT: This acronym means: Victory by Consecutive Threats. A win that results from making threats (four or three) one after another.
So VCF is a narrower definition, not including threes.
VCC: Sure, you could include captures as threats if you have a series of consecutive captures leading to a win. As long as your opponent does not place a greater threat.
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 11, 2009, 12:34 AM
On the VCC idea. Again by definition it is a victory and so the opponent would not have a greater threat available.
Note that I am only pointing out what is patently obvious for the purposes of exposition. I know I am not saying anything that most (especially reds) don't already know.
Consecutive capture victory is only possible if the capturer has an unstoppable sequence, which means there must be some reason why the opponent cannot block the capture and stop the sequence.
As I see it, there are only two reasons this could be. 1: That at one or more junctures in the sequence there were two or more caps possible and the opponent could not defend both in one move. This includes where the capture itself or a forced response to it creates one or more additional capture threats on the next move.
2: That an additional non-capture threat existed that had to be met simultaneously and the opponent could not defend both in one move. This includes where the capture itself or a forced response to it creates one or more additional non-capture threats on the next move.
In both cases an alternative threat must be present in order to achieve victory. In Case 1 this could be called VCC because all threats were of capture type. I think that perhaps Case 2 should be grouped in with VCT as it is not type-specific but combines different threats even if in actual play only the capture threats were carried out.
One other thought about the idea of VCC. This is that although there are games where you see a consecutive sequence of captures leading to victory, captures are often ignorable. An unblocked three is not ignorable unless countered by a more pressing threat, and an unblocked 4 likewise. Neither a 3 or 4 needs the specter of subsequent 3s or 4s for it to be imperative that a response be immediately implemented. Whereas with captures - while we must be always mindful of how many our opponent has captured or might capture - they can potentially be ignored in a given instance and it might be fair to say that a large percentage of the time this is the case. Thus 3s and 4s carry an immediacy that caps do not necessarily have. The immediacy of captures in a VCC comes from the sequence itself and that this sequence leads to 5 caps.
So I see a difference between the concepts of VCF/VCT and VCC, but I don't think this invalidates the concept. VCC may not have quite the same gravitas as the other two, but properly defined, it would be a useful additional term.
Posts:
2,220
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 11, 2009, 6:34 AM
IMO the fact that 3 lines and 4 lines were combined does not show as reason to combine captures into the VCF category as well, and just for the sake of (over) simplicity & similarity, it seems.
vcF, F meaning Four, means all "forcing" lines that are 4 stones or less (single space gap or not).
3 and 4 are the only forcing lines found with in this limit.
captures are the other side of the coin. all though VCF's and VCC's both share in common variances of threat values that are comparable, in order to combine these with a universal "threat value scale", you would need to create a new name to represent all as a whole. when people say VCF its nice to know they are speaking of 3 & 4 lines.
VCC is meaning captures, this is clear too.
and ??? is meaning a universal threat value scale from either source that guarantees a victory.
all in my opinion.
Some of my new name ideas include;
VFM Victory by Forcing Moves VFI Victory by Forcing Initiative VFM Victory by Forcing Momentum VFT Victory by Forcing Threats VDP Victory by Dominant Position (not required to be a forcing move) BEH Beyond the Event Horizon <-term from physics) SUV Superior Universal Value VVF Victory by Vague Force <-hehe) VUS Victory by Unstoppable Sente EDT Inevitable Double Threat TTR Time To Resign and many more..............
in addition from nosovs, Atari : (a Japanese Go term) to lay a stone that threatens to capture.
Atari - just capture
Atari-3* (atari with 4 -th capture threat, and possibility make atari-4* next move) Atari-3 (atari with three after capture)
Atari-4* (atari with 5 -th capture threat) Atari-4 (atari with four after capture)
The level of treat is different - that is important.
Pente Professor Zoeyk
Message was edited by: zoeyk at Dec 11, 2009 12:54 AM
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 11, 2009, 12:21 PM
Zoey, I am not sure I understand some of what you are saying there. Maybe its just my interpretive skills but if you could rework some of that to provide a little more clarity it would help me get my simple mind around it.
As for your Acronyms (strictly speaking these are initialisms), I have some additional suggestions
UDR - Un-Do Requested UDD - Un-Do Denied LBM - Loss By Misclick NMA - No More Acronyms
Posts:
2,220
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 11, 2009, 8:33 PM
alisontate;
2: That an additional non-capture threat existed that had to be met simultaneously and the opponent could not defend both in one move. This includes where the capture itself or a forced response to it creates one or more additional non-capture threats on the next move.
I think that perhaps Case 2 should be grouped in with VCT as it is not type-specific but combines different threats even if in actual play only the capture threats were carried out.
either you edited your post or i mis read. the VCT you wrote i remember seeing say VCF.
and i disagree to combine VCC with VCT or VCF with out renaming the collective.
Now this i base around that we are meaning s3v3ns definition. if we are naming the "T" as threat then i will retract my argument.
But if the forced win was a combo attack of alternating threat lines and threat captures then V.C.Three and or V.C.Four is not a correct category as a whole. caps and 3s and 4s are separate unless named correctly as a collective Universal sequence of threat values. IMO
average joe loaded with opinions; Zoeyk
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 11, 2009, 9:13 PM
I can't wait to unleash the TTR on someone, hehe. I usually just say something like, "hey, check out the fourth button down from the top, it's a good one." TTR is much easier to type!
Anyway, it's interesting to see how VCT and VCF is commonly used in renju. In my experience, it has been used slightly differently in Pente, perhaps since Pente is a game that also involves captures so the concepts are a bit more broad. I have usually seen VCF to mean "Victory by Consecutive Forcing moves" or something to that effect. For example, this generally comes up when two strong players are exploring a line in an unrated environment -- we might try an experimental move, then play it out for two or three more moves and someone will comment "Yeah, white wins from here". It might be only 8 or 9 moves into the game, but it's clear that there is enough momentum for white to win with "consecutive forcing moves" -- in Pente, this could mean consecutive 3s, often forcing a capture along the way which is then used as a continuation for more forcing moves, leading to certain victory. So, sometimes the player will say, more specifically, "Yeah, white wins from here by VCF". This might be an informal use of the term so maybe it's not being used correctly, but this is common usage in Pente. Because of the use of the captures, this is a slightly different concept than would apply in renju, but the same overall idea applies.
Regarding the idea of Victory by Consecutive Captures, I think situation #1 described by Alison would apply. I've never heard this term used in Pente specifically though, probably because it's relatively rare and it only describes situations where the victory is one or two moves away so usually it's just described as "and Black cannot avoid the 5th capture. Black resigns." The earliest that this commonly happens is in a relatively messy game, White already has a "hanging pair" that he could capture at any time away from the action. He has captured two pairs already. Now, instead of playing a tria, he makes a decision to capture a 3rd pair, which opens up two additional captures, one of which cannot be defended without playing into another capturable position. Now, if he has made 3 captures already and is now attacking 3 different pairs on the board, one of which cannot be defended -- then Black cannot stop all the captures and White has an immediate and undefendable victory through captures. Again, a game this messy is rare, but it happens. More often, this would happen one move later, where a fourth capture opens up a situation where he is attacking 2 other pairs, so there is a victory on the next move by consecutive captures. Probably not worth creating a term for this situation.
He resigned at 22 stones. However i saw the forcing VCC sequence by his 15th, and actually it was possible to see it from his 14th. His 14th should had been D7 in my opinion.
although there were 3s and 4s along the way, they were the Immediate threats that were singular and block able, how ever through the process of blocking the obvious i foresaw way in advance that the VCC was inevitable as a result of him blocking my careful sequence of lines and captures leading to the position.
when does VCC start? you be the judge, i think it starts before you see it sometimes. it can be a unavoidable consequence of line threat answering, that can be foreseen far in advance, thus if you know its unavoidable following forced logical moves, then its birth in the game can conceivably have started much earlier than originally thought.
So either in this case it is called VCC, or it is called a new name due to the combo of lines and caps,..but not VCThree or VCFour because ultimately the final winning method was a 5th capture, not a 5 in a row.
in my opinion as usual.
by the way, i counted, and you used the word "capture" 15 times in your post. that's impressive hehe.
Message was edited by: zoeyk at Dec 11, 2009 4:48 PM
Message was edited by: zoeyk at Dec 11, 2009 4:53 PM
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 12, 2009, 1:15 AM
It's interesting to me that Virag and Wagner define VCF as by continuous fours, but I think that for Pente at least VCF could more inclusively be used to stand for victory by continuous forces (or forced moves). This would place it as a slightly stronger term than VCT (assuming a victory by continuous threats definition for that term) in terms of threat potential. VCT includes within it all VCFs. In other words, a situation sometimes arises where if my opponent fails to find their VCF, then I have a VCT. The reasons I suggest using forces instead of fours for Pente are that the threat of a fifth capture may then be included within VCF and as has been pointed out the last move in a victory by continuous fours sequence is not a four but rather a five.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Posts:
2,220
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 12, 2009, 3:47 AM
We've now come Full Circle.
The VCF, and VCT subject was brought up by me calling F. Forcing, and T. Threats.
Then S3v3n said no, it's F. Fours, and T. Threes.
I then agreed he was more right than me.
Now it seems the majority is saying my original definition was actually the most accurate.
And at which point if that's going to be the most correct definition then we no longer require a VCC, nor a new acronym representing 4s and caps combined with a universal value system.
well that all worked out great then, but, something doesn't seem to sit right with me in the over simplicity of this....oh well.
z
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Dec 12, 2009, 8:52 PM
I would not call the situation in the game you've linked to a VCC (if that were a term). These are not continuous or consecutive captures. This is more along the lines of a VCF that I was describing for Pente (Victory by Consecutive Forcing moves). In this case, it isn't even that since there were not actually consecutive forcing moves -- black had to defend a couple of times during the sequence in ways that did not actively create forcing moves, but they did appear to retain initiative in the game due to the looming threat of captures down the line. This is just a complex game where none of these terms really apply. These terms are used when a clear, decisive victory by consecutive forcing moves are so obvious that a good player would recognize it and just resign. A dumb example -- black plays way away from white's K10, white plays all the next moves in the corners and black makes a little triangle and now it's black's turn. On the next move, it's clearly a VCF victory for black since the consecutive threats are overwhelming and a series of forcing moves cannot be stopped.
