Live data from Hacker News

Mastering Stratego

deepmind.com

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: Mastering Stratego

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not hard to beat a player that does what you suggest; just send some middling pieces after each piece that moves. You'll take the weak pieces and reveal the strong pieces. But taking a strong piece means revealing a stronger piece of you own. That’s why I think the best strategy is to put almost all your weak pieces up front.,and wait for your enemy to reveal their pieces. Scouts, especially, are canon fodder…

Having scouts in the mid/late game is important to make them play more cautiously with their spy, since a scout can take out a spy from any straight-line path.

If you know know where the enemy’s spy is he either is dead or served his purpose by killing your marshall.

So, the idea is to, in midgame, make educated guesses as to the positions of the spy (e.g. the piece that stays close to the enemy general, or that moves towards your marshall), and sacrifice scouts, hoping to kill the spy?

Interesting tactic (and if that’s their common usage, why are they called scouts? ‘Assassin’ might be a better name)

Re: Mastering Stratego

#122
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are probably very much diminishing returns. A small scene is probably pretty damn good at the top. Having hundreds of thousands of competitive players helps, but even with a small sample you are probably likely to get at least some very, very strong players. It's hard to think of a relevant real world example, but a fun corollary I'm familiar with is Fedex (Federico Perez Ponsa). He is a full chess Gran…

Love the real life example. No matter how good the top players are relative to the competition tho, I feel like a large playerbase still raises the skill bar to a huge degree. There's a ratchet effect where someone figures something out, other people copy, and it breaks into public consciousness through influencers and popularizers. Then on the tail end, regular people regurgitate it for years like it's new informati…

I completely without knowledge on the topic would imagine the "for fun" aspect is probably a pretty dominant factor.

I play disc golf pretty regularly. Over the last 10 years, it has exploded in popularity.

I'm not sure that the explosion of popularity has resulted in better people performing in tournaments.

But what has changed, is how much money can be won by competing in disc golf, and how much money is available across the sport as a whole.

The increased prize money has dramatically changed the number of people and level of competition for people playing the game seriously as well as how seriously everyone involved in top level play takes the sport. This then has a trickle down effect in the number of people and seriousness of things like training clinics, professional teachers, professional and more intelligent course construction and analysis. It pays for more analysis into all aspects of gameplay to increase the competitive edge of performers at the top.

The increased player base, in turn, pays for most of this, as it increases the potential market for the same services as all of the above. And the more seriously top level play is, and the higher the winning prize pool money goes, the more respectable the sport has become in the public eye, which in turn creates a catch-22 effect whereby players appear more willing to spend more money on the sport on those services.

All of which increases the level of play at the top. And you can see it in the quality of new young athletes that are coming up in this new environment, and how much better they are and how much more they are able to learn from the more widely accessible resources than their equivalent counter-parts were 10 years ago.

Its been fascinating to watch, and very exciting. Particularly over the pandemic, the sport has come from being called "frolf" on a golf course or in your local park, to "disc golf" with multi-million dollar professional contracts, dedicated disc golf resorts and private courses, training clinics, and dedicated PPV channels. Very cool : D

A counter-example might be the various competitive communities around different forms of boardgames, which tend to be very small, but often very competitively driven and taken very seriously by a very dedicated community, but I don't know enough about the topic to discuss : )

Re: Mastering Stratego

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having scouts in the mid/late game is important to make them play more cautiously with their spy, since a scout can take out a spy from any straight-line path.

If you know know where the enemy’s spy is he either is dead or served his purpose by killing your marshall. So, the idea is to, in midgame, make educated guesses as to the positions of the spy (e.g. the piece that stays close to the enemy general, or that moves towards your marshall), and sacrifice scouts, hoping to kill the spy? Interesting tactic (and if that’s their common usage, why are they called scouts? ‘Assas…

That is one of several uses for scouts. When the opponent has scouts, it's safer to keep your spy behind one of the lakes, since they will occasionally fly across the map just to reveal a piece; you don't want your spy getting "accidentally" killed by a scout either. If the opponent sacrifices all of their scouts early you can move the spy around more easily.

Since killing the opponents Marshall with the spy is such a huge advantage, losing your spy is a big disadvantage.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you know know where the enemy’s spy is he either is dead or served his purpose by killing your marshall. So, the idea is to, in midgame, make educated guesses as to the positions of the spy (e.g. the piece that stays close to the enemy general, or that moves towards your marshall), and sacrifice scouts, hoping to kill the spy? Interesting tactic (and if that’s their common usage, why are they called scouts? ‘Assas…

That is one of several uses for scouts. When the opponent has scouts, it's safer to keep your spy behind one of the lakes, since they will occasionally fly across the map just to reveal a piece; you don't want your spy getting "accidentally" killed by a scout either. If the opponent sacrifices all of their scouts early you can move the spy around more easily. Since killing the opponents Marshall with the spy is such…

> When the opponent has scouts, it's safer to keep your spy behind one of the lakes

I don’t know anybody who plays the game that way, but reading the rules (https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Stratego.PDF), that wouldn’t fully help. The rules say

“scouts are the only pieces allowed to both move and attack in the same turn. A scout can move any number of open squares forward, backward or sideways into an attack position. Once in position, it can then attack”

That doesn’t say in any way that that attack has to be in the direction of movement. So, you could move a scout 3 squares forward and then attack leftwards.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is one of several uses for scouts. When the opponent has scouts, it's safer to keep your spy behind one of the lakes, since they will occasionally fly across the map just to reveal a piece; you don't want your spy getting "accidentally" killed by a scout either. If the opponent sacrifices all of their scouts early you can move the spy around more easily. Since killing the opponents Marshall with the spy is such…

> When the opponent has scouts, it's safer to keep your spy behind one of the lakes I don’t know anybody who plays the game that way, but reading the rules ( https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Stratego.PDF ), that wouldn’t fully help. The rules say “scouts are the only pieces allowed to both move and attack in the same turn. A scout can move any number of open squares forward, backward or sideways into an attack…

Different editions of Stratego have different wordings for scouts. Some rules are silent on moving and attacking in the same turn (implying that scouts can't move & attack in the same turn), some rules specifically state that the scout cannot move and attack in the same turn. Some rules say they can move and attack in a straight line, and some use the wording you quote.

The ISF rule is that the attack must be in-line with the move[1].

1: https://isfstratego.kleier.net/docs/rulreg/isfgamerules.pdf Section 5.3

Re: Mastering Stratego

#126

Call me a cynic but the fact that after almost 10 years of AI hype we are still working our way down the list of popular board games is a bit of a downer for me. I mean, having AIs to play Stratego, Risk, Go, Diplomacy and what have you against sure is nice. But there are literally billions of dollars spent on these projects and I really come to the point where I just don't believe anymore that the current AI approac…

> after almost 10 years of AI hype we are still working our way down the list of popular board games

That's what one lab is doing.

You cannot be blind to many many applications that are finding their ways to consumers and earning people money.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#127
post #30
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watched some of the first game. I'd bet stratego favors defence, advantage to the AI that has no/minimal concept of the value of time.

Yeah this is one of the reasons why I find it more dull than chess. There is an incentive to just not move your pieces, so that the other player thinks they're bombs. As a result, players only activate 2-3 pieces at a time. In chess, on the other hand, you are constantly moving your pawns to the other side to promotion, or otherwise trying to activate/coordinate all of your pieces for an attack. It makes me think tha…

[deleted]

Re: Mastering Stratego

#128
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating games. But I played a lot of Stratego as a kid, and I remember 1 was the strongest piece and 9 was the weakest. In these videos it seems 10 is strongest and 2 is weakest and that's making it confusing to watch. Did the pieces change sometime in the past 40 years or am I imagining things?

I've just watched a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYQbGHgaWbM that talks about "original" Stratego, a game created in 1947 by Jacques Johan Mogendorff. It might be nostalgic for you. Searching to find out whether "original" is the current version, I've noticed that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratego#Versions answers your question "European versions of the game give the Marshal the highest number (10), whi…

I just checked my UK eighties version and the Marshal is 1 on the board
Post reply on HN