Opening theory - D/P vs D/P and alternatives

[vermont]

Given the weakness of S/W vs D/P, I'm finding that more and more of my games are turning into a D/P, D/P mirror.

I'd be curious to know what the better players think of the situation?

-Perhaps there are good alternatives that they are saving for the tourney?
-Perhaps a more viable line in another opening will reveal itself?
-Perhaps S/W has a way out that is missing?
-Perhaps someone can make the invis continuation viable again?
-Perhaps D/P as an opening should be invalid?
-Perhaps another rule change is needed?

Thoughts? Other ideas?

I'd be very curious to hear other's feedback on this. Maybe I'm just stuck in a rut.

[ExDeath]

vermont said:

Given the weakness of S/W vs D/P, I'm finding that more and more of my games are turning into a D/P, D/P mirror.

I'd be curious to know what the better players think of the situation?

-Perhaps there are good alternatives that they are saving for the tourney?
-Perhaps a more viable line in another opening will reveal itself?
-Perhaps S/W has a way out that is missing?
-Perhaps someone can make the invis continuation viable again?
-Perhaps D/P as an opening should be invalid?
-Perhaps another rule change is needed?

Thoughts? Other ideas?

I'd be very curious to hear other's feedback on this. Maybe I'm just stuck in a rut.

I made a post to this effect about the reason I'm quitting being that the optimal line for 50 turns is a boring mirror. I'm working to find the next step in the evolution, which I do believe exists, but for now D/P remains the only sensible opening with no losing matchups at all.

Doubtful that anyone has saved a superior opening for the tourney, since I've been studying it pretty hard and come up with nothing, but who knows. A rule change will likely never happen, and even if the rules were changed, a new opening would appear to take the place of this one. We're just at a sticky spot in the evolution of the game.

[toyotami]

...i dont think there is a lack of options.

1) The loop that slucker and Exdeath performed was a freak show.

2) for all but the ELO2000 plus, nobody need worry about such theoretics

3) Even out of a sub optimal opening, luck, risk plays a part and the player that sticks to the always optimal can be undone. (especially if you know EXACTLY how he will play his first 10 moves under optimal circumstances)

4) you are a coward to open in the always optimal way and we are all human and humans diespise cowardice, therefore the very best should be able to prove themselves in alternative (even if pre arraged alternatives eg. Let's both open WW),making a change of rules unnecessary (As Exdeath basically spelled out, for another equally valid reason).

5) No..i don't have a five..wait...yes i do...maybe keeping your secrets to yourself.

[Slartucker]

-Perhaps there are good alternatives that they are saving for the tourney?
I'm very skeptical.

-Perhaps a more viable line in another opening will reveal itself?
That's possible, though I'm not sure we'll end up with anything much better than my D/W open.

-Perhaps S/W has a way out that is missing?
That's pretty unlikely given how much it's been looked into.

-Perhaps someone can make the invis continuation viable again?
See previous answer.

-Perhaps D/P as an opening should be invalid?
I'm not convinced this is a good answer, but exploring it is one of the reasons I'm starting the League.

-Perhaps another rule change is needed?
Perhaps, but the whole problem needs to be explored more before something like that is even considered.

[toyotami]

Take a look at me and Xade's game...this opening doesn't seem so bad...and once the stuff gets going its anybodies game. This is two 1900 plus ELO players who know each other well going at it. I scoff at the idea the D/P is a boring opening with predictable results.

[toyotami]

sorry...game number 60043

games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=60043

[Slartucker]

It's not horrible, but there are plenty of options against D/P that are "not horrible". It isn't good, though. You put yourself on the losing end of the very common DPs & PSDs vs WWPs face-off. I say losing end because the offensive player has a slight advantage in initiative there.

This is the kind of opening that doesn't seem so bad until you actually sit down and analyze it, do out the different ways things could go for the first couple of turns, until you find that things are stacked against you.

toyotami said:

This is two 1900 plus ELO players who know each other well going at it. I scoff at the idea the D/P is a boring opening with predictable results.

Well then that speaks poorly for the state of our 1900 ranked players. Perhaps I should start playing rated games again.

That was a bit harsh, but really, a sub-optimal weave used by a great player is still a sub-optimal weave.

[awall]

admin said:

-Perhaps a more viable line in another opening will reveal itself?
That's possible, though I'm not sure we'll end up with anything much better than my D/W open.

What ever happened to F/P?

I've never really used it, because I don't know it well enough to try it in a big important game (like the tournament) and I don't want to use it on newbies who can't defend themselves properly, as an 8-turn paraFoD kill is not a good way to attract new players to the game. But supposedly, this is a viable opening against D/P, and as I understand it, the only reason this isn't used very much is because it's not particularly aesthetically pleasing.

[ExDeath]

toyotami said:

...i dont think there is a lack of options.

3) Even out of a sub optimal opening, luck, risk plays a part and the player that sticks to the always optimal can be undone. (especially if you know EXACTLY how he will play his first 10 moves under optimal circumstances)

4) you are a coward to open in the always optimal way and we are all human and humans diespise cowardice, therefore the very best should be able to prove themselves in alternative

3.) Yes. Sure. It's true that I could likely start with -/F and come back to beat you. That doesn't mean I want to take the chance, though.

4.) This is as patently ridiculous as saying that Roger Federer is a coward for using his fastest serve. He's so great, he doesn't need it, right? He should be able to extend his opponents every courtesy to make sure they have a chance, otherwise, he's a coward. Just lob the d**n ball.

But I'm glad there are people who think the way you do. It means I'll start with the advantage every time I play them.

[Citanest]

exdeath said:

4.) This is as patently ridiculous as saying that Roger Federer is a coward for using his fastest serve. He's so great, he doesn't need it, right? He should be able to extend his opponents every courtesy to make sure they have a chance, otherwise, he's a coward. Just lob the d**n ball.

But I'm glad there are people who think the way you do. It means I'll start with the advantage every time I play them.

But you won't play them because the game has become boring for you. It hasn't for Toyo.

[Rycchus]

Well said, Citanest.


There are a few things I mess around with occasionally that I'm happy work well versus D/P. I'm not going to post them here because if they are good enough I don't want people nicking them

[ExDeath]

citanest said:

exdeath said:

4.) This is as patently ridiculous as saying that Roger Federer is a coward for using his fastest serve. He's so great, he doesn't need it, right? He should be able to extend his opponents every courtesy to make sure they have a chance, otherwise, he's a coward. Just lob the d**n ball.

But I'm glad there are people who think the way you do. It means I'll start with the advantage every time I play them.

But you won't play them because the game has become boring for you. It hasn't for Toyo.

That's completely irrelevant to the point of whether or not somebody is a coward for using optimal strategy.

[Citanest]

Perhaps coward is too strong a word.

The point remains though that Warlocks is not comparable to highly paid professional tennis, and so fun, not winning, ought to take priority. If it transpires that the first 50 odd turns of Warlocks optimal strategy is some boring, mirrored algorithm, then just use another.

Will you abandon Warlocks completely if you really can't find a solution to the current problem?

[Slartucker]

Warlocks isn't like highly paid professional tennis, maybe, but it's not a far cry from a local circuit of a competitive card game.

Here's my problem, and this is a "problem" that I experience with all manner of games. I could care less whether I win, but it's no fun for me if I'm not TRYING to win. In the case of Warlocks or Chess, this doesn't mean I have to put my full energy into every move in games that I play for fun, but I can't knowingly make a sub-optimal move. It drains the fun out of it for me instantly; it's like nails on a chalkboard. Because the great thing about the game is watching two players strive to win: the representations of theory incarnated fleetingly into their moves, survived and fulfilled by the results of each turn, with interactions as mathematically elegant as those of a game of Life but much more complex and therefore beautiful.

The game loses its poetry if we have to start making bad moves. Coward isn't too strong a word, it's the wrong word entirely. I'd suggest "epic hero."

[xade]

pssst...that's two words...