|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 14, 2010 19:29:30 GMT -5
But it is very important to stress that every analysis is applied to a current metagame - that's it, a meta of current game knowledge and current players level. You weren't analysing "D/P vs the world" for the sake of pure theory in vacuum - you were analysing to break the stalled metagame of known openings and known players, and you succeeded for that moment [/i][/quote] You are right enough about Taliestein and my being too quick to discard modern theories. And, you are right that F/S has proved to be successful for this environment. But I, personally, really don't analyze for a given environment; I do attempt to analyze in a vacuum. This is not categorically true -- my D/W opening was an obvious exception -- but my initial analysis of D/P, before DSF/PWP was repopularized, _was_ really meant to be D/P vs. the world. This is how I approached similar situations before I encountered Warlocks (CCGs, largely). Not that I'm unwilling to account for environment, but the process that my brain snaps to automatically is to search out ALL possible responses, not just currently popular ones. Simply because of my own preferences & convictions, I am happier discovering something that is theoretically optimal and robust but impractical in the current environment, than something that smashes the environment but is easily undone if one finds the weakness. I think we are each taking different approaches to analysis and that's fine, they both have their place. Theory needs practice to be meaningful and practice needs theory to advance, particularly when a paradigm shift à la Taliestein is called for. If you only have the theoretical approach, nothing comes of it, but if you only have the practical approach and can't look beyond what's already in use, you'll be taken for a ride time and again. This is what happened 5 years ago when Tchichi, previously at the top of the ladder, found himself totally unable to compete with the other masters. They planned for his innovations before he employed them but he was undone by their own. So, it is not accurate to declare F/S a success beyond the current environment. However, that does not demean in any way its success in the current environment. The winning play, is the winning play; it participates in a competition which analysis attends but does not judge.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Apr 15, 2010 10:10:19 GMT -5
The winning play, is the winning play; it participates in a competition which analysis attends but does not judge. The funny thing about these discussions, to me, is my impression that the D/P era was only possible because enough prominent players brainwashed the rest of us into believing FFF strings were inelegant and lazy and boring and wrong... (and they are8-)) While I'm not as good as Succat at deciding which player to target the current F of an FFF string, FFF strings were a major piece on my strategy "BT" (before Taliesin) and now they're sort of a defensive, just in case, tactic for me. Then, as now, I find FFF stings viscerally displeasing, but they do work (and work too well, so well that they are difficult to gracefully exit)
|
|
scwizard
Ronin Warlock
Lone Wol
Posts: 55
|
Post by scwizard on Apr 16, 2010 13:35:26 GMT -5
What openings are strong against DP and what analysis has been done to demonstrate that?
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 16, 2010 14:30:00 GMT -5
scwizard My pardon, but I'm getting the impression that you outright ignored all previous posts in this thread.
|
|
scwizard
Ronin Warlock
Lone Wol
Posts: 55
|
Post by scwizard on Apr 16, 2010 16:56:35 GMT -5
Well the thread mentioned FP being strong against DP I think, but didn't link to any analysis, so I was wondering if anyone had links.
Then Slartucker said "it was "proven by trial" that S/W beat D/P, even though in the current analysis it doesn't." However he also didn't link to any analysis.
So I was wondering if anyone had a full list of openings that are strong against DP, because the information on that matter in the thread is scattered, and I don't know whether or not it's complete.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 16, 2010 17:21:52 GMT -5
scwizard -- This is an involved topic to jump in on, and I'm afraid we haven't made it very easy to do so. The analyses in question go back many years and not all are recorded. Chief among these are, in chronological order:
- Taliesin's proof that D/P beat everything in Confusion games, written but lost long ago - 2003? - Taliesin's development of S/W to beat Pig and D/P, partially recorded in his History located at Slartucker's Refuge - Debates about D/P, S/W, S/P, S/S among old masters, partially recorded in my overview of openings at the Refuge - State of opening theory circa 2006 recorded in the same overview of openings - ExDeath's reintroduction of DSF/PWP in some thread here - Various less important debates and responses to that, including D/W mentioned above - Bio's analysis about some F openings somewhere on here, not sure where but definitely present, so use the search function
|
|
scwizard
Ronin Warlock
Lone Wol
Posts: 55
|
Post by scwizard on Apr 16, 2010 17:26:16 GMT -5
Thanks, I'll try and dig up what I can.
|
|
|
Post by salvor on Apr 17, 2010 16:02:46 GMT -5
Proving that SW/WW can't handle with DS/PW minmax.ermarian.net/refuge/dsffod.html(If I remember one thing correctly than there is a small hole there, so it leaves thing much less disastrous for S/W, you may try to find it ) Variants which can handle DS/PW are: SP/WW SF/WW SW/WF Analysis of SP/WW:(Actually there is a hole in that's analysis, try to find it ) slarty.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=warlocks&action=display&thread=68Taliesin and Slartucker were analysing SF/WW and SW/WF but they don't reached consensus in this question(Taliesin believes that SF/WW is better than SW/WF, SLartucker believes that SW/WF is better): slarty.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=warlocks&thread=79&post=850slarty.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=warlocks&thread=97&post=1099If you want to read about D/W you should read a D/W-oppening thread)))). Some investigations about F/S vs D/P matchup you can find here (link to this thread was already mentioned here, that's why maybe it lookes like you haven't read anything in this thread) And actually I think that you should analyse it by yourself. As I know, there aren't any complete analysis of F/P vs D/P (the one that exist is rather unfinished) and this makes some analyses by old masters a bit incomplete. I mean that during there analysis they assumed that F/P (or F/S) has a clear disadvant so they "cut off" some lines which are actually playable, for example in D/W vs D/P matchup nobody looked into DPP/PSF and DPF/WWP thinking that these line are absolutely ridiculous, but if you suppose that F/P is equal to D/P you'll find that DP/PS vs DP/WW situation changes rapidly. It is actually the all open for society analysis which I know and which are younger than 5 years (I've found a rather old(2003 year) analysis of S/D-oppening, it was interesting to read, but it won't teach you a lot)
|
|
scwizard
Ronin Warlock
Lone Wol
Posts: 55
|
Post by scwizard on Apr 19, 2010 10:18:32 GMT -5
Ahh, ok, I was wondering about this.
|
|