Daren Jackson
United States Laramie Wyoming
|
After my geek voyage started a few years ago, T & E was perhaps the third or fourth game I bought. After one play, my fiance and I put it away--it was "too deep" for us at the time, compared to Lost Cities and Caesar and Cleopatra. But I've always treasured it, knowing that one day I would play again and grow to love it.
Well, after hundreds of different games I returned. And I just don't get it. Although I was playing tonight with experienced gamers, the game just doesn't make sense to me on some fundamental level. I like the idea. I like the look of the game. I like the theme. I've studied the rules. I understand the difference between external and internal conflicts. I love Knizia games, and own more of his games than any other designer. It doesn't seem particularly complex, although I'm not averse to complexity. I like abstract games. I just...don't...get it. When it is my turn, I have no idea what to do. I have no idea if another player is playing well or not.
My current top 10, if it helps diagnose this affliction/curse/illness of "not getting T & E"--Yinsh, Goa, Hannibal: R vs. C, Hansa, London's Burning, Battle Line, Heroscape, Munchkin, Carolus Magnus (some are top 10 because they're new to my collection; others are my "classics"). I'm looking forward to playing Hammer of the Scots, Rommell in the Desert, Princes of Florence, Traders of Genoa, Magna Grecia, and Mare Nostrum in the next few months (subject to the whims of my fiance and the rest of my gaming group.)
I'm a fairly agreeable gamer (by which I mean I'll try most games at least once). The only recent disaster I can recall is War of the Ring, which I really, really dislike. Oh, and I've had to ward off Power Grid, Reef Encounter, and Age of Steam recently b/c the themes just don't interest me.
I just can't see a pattern here.
So...ideas on what the hell is wrong with me? I'm ready to admit that I have a problem. I've hit rock bottom. I need your help. I don't understand T & E.
|
Ben .
United Kingdom Unspecified Surrey
|
When you start off playing T&E, I think the way to go to stop yourself being overawed by the number of options available is to play the game totally tactically, and don't worry about the longer-term strategies.
Each turn, look at your score at see what colour(s) you need to focus on. Then go for those colours. Your basic points will come from placing tiles. Then you might build up to the odd external conflict to score some bigger points.
When you've played a few times, you'll start to find yourself planning for the big conflicts in advance - you'll start using the internal conflicts to line up bigger external conflicts and to take and hold the monuments.
Don't worry about "getting" it all in one go - take it a step at a time and you'll find the game reveals itself to you over time and gets deeper and deeper and deeper.
|
Yehuda Berlinger
Israel Jerusalem
|
Tigris & Euphrates
» Forums » Strategy
Re: Why, why, why can't I
The object of the game is to get (more) victory points in whichever color you currently have the least of (than any other player has in their own least color). You gain victory points by doing one of the following: A) Placing a tile of color X into a kingdom where you have a leader of color X. This gains you one victory point of color X. B) Placing a tile of color X in a kingdom that does not have that color leader, but where you haveyour king. This gains you one victory point of color X. These two methods are the slowest but surest way to get points, since you simply play the tiles and take the points. You need an endlessly unbalanced set of tiles to do this. And you need your leaders on the board. You would always like to combine laying a tile with more than one point, if possible, by working your way over to a treasure. On the other hand, sometimes you will get no points for an action, such as placing a leader, disaster tile, or something else. A rule of thumb is therefore try to gain 1 complete set of points (all colors) roughly every 5-6 actions. Towards the end of the game, you should be gaining between 1 to 1.5 sets of points each round. C) Forcing a situation such that you have a green leader in a kingdom that has two treasures in it at the end of any player's action. Usually you will have to do this yourself by placing tiles to accomplish this. The idea is to look for situations where you end your turn two tile placements away from a treasure, since that means that the treasure will be yours next round unless someone does something to stop you (which they will). Think of all colored points as worth 1/4 of a point, and treasures as 1 point, until midgame. Thereafter, colored points you need and treasures are worth 1 point, and ones you don't aren't worth anything. D) Placing you leader into a kingdom that has another leader of the same color. If you have more red tiles surrounding your leader plus red tiles in your hand than your opponent, you gain one red point. Some tricks: If there are no spaces in the kingdom with more than 1 red tile to connect to, but you already have a leader in that kingdom surrounded by 3 red tiles, your first action can be moving your existing leader somewhere else, and your second action moving your leader into the kingdom at the point you just vacated. Toss tiles until you get red ones. Don't spend too many red tiles. Assume you will get some with internal conflicts (and therefore, red points), so keep them stored in your hand. About three in reserve should serve you well, while you use the other three tiles for laying down and scoring points. If you are attacking at an advantage, attack once. If you lose, and he had to toss out tiles to protect himself, attack again. He may have no more red tiles left. Don't leave any spaces near your kingdom that have two red tiles abutting. Either fill the space in with other tiles or place your own leaders there. Don't leave spaces near your kingdom that has even one red tile. To attack you this way, someone would have to both play a red tile and their leader, which is a lot of actions. Try to place your leaders near temples with treasures, as these cannot be disastered until the treasure is gone. E) Placing a tile to connect two kingdoms forcing one or more external conflicts. If you can win the external conflicts, you gain one or more points in the color fought in. The location you choose to connect with, and the order you choose to resolve the external conflicts, is critical. Fight in colors that you need. Always prefer to be the defender. Always try to have at least a three tile advantage. Four is better, of course. Two tile advantage if you're feeling frisky. Don't despair if you lose, since T&E is not a resource game, i.e. you never run out of resources. You can temporarily not have the right type of resources, but you always have as many resources as any other player at the start of every round. Use up your tiles. There are always more (until the game is almost over). Always fight external conflicts whenever you can win. Not only to you gain the points, you increase the distance between your kingdom and other external conflicts, you gain the suppporting kingdom's tiles (although, not in the color you just fought), you force your opponent to spend an action getting his kingdom back on the board, and you get to place your leader in the space he just vacated (if you still have an action). If you know that your opponent is going to win an external conflict, consider removing your leader before he attacks, thereby gaining him no points in that color when he connects. This does leave him very strong, however. F) Ending your turn with your leaders in kingdoms that have like colored monuments, giving you one point of the color that matches the leader for each monument that matches your leader. Build a monument if you can defend it from external conflicts and internal conflicts, even after is is built. Always have at least two connections to the monument so that it takes at least two disasters to separate you from it. Sow discord among your enemies while it is built: go for treasures, for instance. This will force them to have to decide between attacking you for the monument or preventing you from getting the treasure. Likely they will go for the treasure, and likely that is a mistake. If you kingdom can be merged into, but only some distance away from the monument, consider adding a leader into the kingdom whose sole point is to lose the external conflict, thereby removing all the connecting tiles to the invading kingdom. This will leave you several more rounds away from joining their kingdom. This gives him many point in one color, however. On the plus side, you won't have to worry about giving him more points in that color for the rest of the game, since you know he has enough. If someone has had a monument for a while, don't worry about it anymore, since they don't really need those colors. However, if you see someone gaining in all four colors in a round, sever his monument ties. You prevent others from gaining points as follows: a) Taking tresures before they can get to them. b) Placing your leaders into kingdoms that contain their king, which limits the point colors they can earn in that kingdom. c) Forcing their leaders off the board with conflicts. d) Forcing then to waste an action merging kingdoms, rather than simply connecting tiles into their kingdom, by placing your leader into the tiles they are about to connect to. The tile they place to merge the kingdoms will not gain them any points. If their are no conflicts, they also gain no points from external conflicts. e) Forcing their leaders away from monuments, either through conflicts or disaster tiles. f) Preventing them from winning conflicts, by severing their leader's supports within the kingdom with disaster tiles, turning over their suporting tiles by making a monument, or beating them with an unbalanced set of tiles in your hand. g) Requiring them to waste their time going after you in ways that feed them points in colors that do not do them any good. h) Ending the game by drawing tiles when you are ahead. Yehuda
Last edited on 2005-05-18 09:10:02 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
moshe klass
United States brooklyn New York
|
I would only add, that as a beginner in this game you should play with open scores.
|
Allen Doum
United States Santa Ana California
|
Re: Why, why, why can't I
Besides all the good tactical advice above, I would add one thing: Don't think of anything on the board as belonging to you. That can be a tough mindset to lose. but even your leaders are just a opportunity to score points, and sometimes it is the other player who can use that opportunity.
|
skippen
United States Greeley Colorado
|
I was part of Daren's game as well. I only lost by 1 cube, and for what he knew, I knew even less. I don't think I have felt more clueless in my entire life playing a game.
|
Dave Eisen
United States Silicon Valley California
|
Re: Why, why, why can't I
A couple of comments. There are a *lot* of little tactical tricks in this game. You will figure them out or learn them, but don't be surprised if it takes a little while. And second, while some of the games you enjoy are deep (no one would call Goa or Hannibal light), none of them require the kind of geometric intuition that E&T does. There are people who, no matter how often they played this, would just never have a good feel of how an external conflict is going to go because they can't visualize how the kingdoms will change after each color in turn is resolved. If you don't see it, I'm not sure you ever will. But keep trying. Truly magnificent game. One of my favorites, particularly with 2 players.
|
kevin long
United States Vancouver Washington
|
Play against the A.I. on the program available on the links - that was the way for me to come to grips with T&E - can play fast games to get feel and rhythm - nithing beats a comouter opponent as a tool fro learning a game!
|
Jacob Lee
Canada Victoria British Columbia
|
Daren, I understand your frustration. I've avoided this game for several years. I read the rules, understood them as best I could, but it really came across as an extremely abstract game with finicky rules. This review changed all that: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geekforum.php3?action=viewthrea...This is the review that made sense of the whole game and gave meaning to all the actions. T&E is not an abstract game at all - in fact, it has more theme than most games I've played. I believe Knizia integrated the theme before designing the mechanics, contrary to what most people say. After reading that review (less than two months ago), I realized what I was missing out on and went online to order it. I now join the legions of T&E fanatics. Wonderful theme. Awesome game. I hope it helps you understand the game better.
|
Daren Jackson
United States Laramie Wyoming
|
Thanks for all the tips on playing (and understanding) T & E. I played online (against a not-so-good AI, and only 2P). After 5-6 games, I could beat the program, but the game is not fun enough to really warrant further investigation. I don't understand the advice given in this thread about not regarding a kindgom as "mine." Isn't the game about maintaining control of kindgoms? I found the most solid strategy in the 2P game is simply to build as big a kingdom as I can, with evenly balanced tile placements, and as many monuments as possible, thus keeping my points in all colors relatively equal. Also, to go after as many treasure on "my side" of the board as I can. Such equal placement of tiles ensures that I will be ready for the external conflicts that only occur at the end of the game, PLUS I don't have to waste red tiles by instigating internal conlicts with my opponent. (Why waste 3 or 4 red tiles to win one red cube, when I can use those same tiles to earn 3 or 4 red cubes?). Playing multiplayer, I imagine I would try to use the same strategy: avoid other players by not stirring up rivalries, and thus prepare for the external conflicts that will occur at game end. Unfortunately, this becomes a boring game of what is essentially solitaire, and I can't see playing it again. I'm sure there must be something I'm missing, since there is such a fanbase for this game. (On the other hand, I'm not a real big Puerto Rico fan either, so maybe not.  Further comments appreciated.
|
Robert Birks
Australia Newborough Victoria
|
There are many reasons to like or dislike T&E. However, if you think of it as multiplayer solitaire, you are way off the mark. Simply put, if one player hides away in a corner and avoids conflict for most of the game, he/she will almost certainly lose, and probably quite badly. Obviously 2p games might be different, but the game wasn't designed to be a 2 player game.
The games I've played will often start off being somewhat separated, ie each player chooses one area of the board to play tiles in. However, conflict inevitably occurs fairly early in the mid game, if not before.
Some games turn into out and out battle fests, with one conflict after another. Others are a bit more solitary in nature, but most are inbetween.
Of course, there's every chance you simply wont like that game no matter how good your understanding of the game becomes. If you are still wanting to test it out, try playing it online (on this website), just to get a feel for how that game works strategically. Playing F2F obviously adds in the player interaction element, which adds to every board game's enjoyment value, but online might at least help you understand it's strategic appeal more.
Personally, I come and go on this game. It hasn't been played at the table in my last 30 or so board games, but it will be back sometime soon I'm sure.
|
Daren Jackson
United States Laramie Wyoming
|
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. However, I must disagree about one comment. My box (English edition) clearly states 2-4 players; also, many people seem to enjoy the game 2P. I've found that Knizia is usually pretty honest about stated scalability (Samurai, for instance, works well with 2P, just like he says it does. Taj Mahal is listed as 3-5, not at 2-5 with a gimmicky 2P variant component tacked on at the end of the rules.)
Anyway, thanks again!
|
Massimo B.
Italy Unspecified
|
Re: Why, why, why can't I
dcjackso wrote: I'm sure there must be something I'm missing Yes, you are clearly missing a competent opponent. The AI is awfully weak and you can't "get the game" playing against it. I assure you that even with only 2 players there is a lot of interaction beacuse you need to play aggressively. The strategy you described would fail miserably against a good player. I suggest you try to play some games here on BGG (I know there are people who can't stand the slow play-by-web games, in any case you need some human opponents).
|
|
|
dcjackso wrote: I don't understand the advice given in this thread about not regarding a kindgom as "mine." Isn't the game about maintaining control of kindgoms? Nope. The game is about human greed and the conflict it creates. Kingdoms are only useful as long as you need them. When they're no longer of benefit, abandon them - unless your opponents depose your leaders first. Quote: I found the most solid strategy in the 2P game is simply to build as big a kingdom as I can, with evenly balanced tile placements, and as many monuments as possible, thus keeping my points in all colors relatively equal. Also, to go after as many treasure on "my side" of the board as I can. While 2P E&T is excellent, it's probably not the best mode to learn the game. Two newbies playing 2P E&T will usually end up on opposite sides of the board, doing their own thing, as you have discovered. Quote: Such equal placement of tiles ensures that I will be ready for the external conflicts that only occur at the end of the game, PLUS I don't have to waste red tiles by instigating internal conlicts with my opponent. (Why waste 3 or 4 red tiles to win one red cube, when I can use those same tiles to earn 3 or 4 red cubes?). Case in point - too much fear. Conflicts usually occur constantly throughout the game, shattering kingdoms, deposing leaders and generally leading to carnage all over Mesopotamia. Revolutions, aka internal conflicts, are about position and wresting control of a Kingdom from an opposing leader. The solitary Temple VP is a nice but inconsequential side effect. The meat of the game is measured, steady war between Kingdoms. My 2P games are wrestling matches. You keep your friends close, but you must keep your enemy even closer. Always be where your enemy is, and never, ever give him breathing room. This should result in a steady diet of revolutions and wars, giving you a bloody and intense experience. Quote: Playing multiplayer, I imagine I would try to use the same strategy: avoid other players by not stirring up rivalries, and thus prepare for the external conflicts that will occur at game end. An experienced player will determine the weakness in "your" Kingdom, and take it away from you with revolution and war. It's not uncommon to find yourself with no leaders in Mesopotamia in the middle of the game. Quote: I'm sure there must be something I'm missing, since there is such a fanbase for this game. You've just scratched the surface of the game. If you can't find experienced players to play against, try a little more aggression. Alternatively, there are some vicious players here on BGG. Quote: (On the other hand, I'm not a real big Puerto Rico fan either, so maybe not. Perhaps there isn't enough aggression in your PR games either?
|
Daren Jackson
United States Laramie Wyoming
|
Thank for the comments. I'll doubt I'll play E & T online, because I don't know of a decent AI, and my (albeit few) experiences with online gaming suggest that there isn't much learning to be had for newbies. You play, get crushed quickly by someone who has played hundreds or thousands of times (and perhaps gives you the occassional snotty comment about a "dumb" move), and that's it. Also, when a newbie plays in a multiplayer game, other players often get upset if you don't "stop" another player from somehow scoring points--even if you identify yourselves as being new to the game. Such at least has been my experience. I'd much rather learn a game FTF, but my group doesn't seem interested enough in E & T to play more than a few times a year.
Anyway, thanks. Re: aggressiveness in PR, I don't think of PR as being a particularly aggressive game; more of a solitaire affair (which isn't bad in itself), except for the all-important screw-you mechanic in choosing roles (especially the captain). I've played 2 5P games with very experienced players, and I think in the second game (in the first I was just learning the rules) I screwed other people over nearly as much as I got screwed over; that is, I think I played the game "right." I found it had more downtime than any non-war game I've ever played (we play games like Tikal and Goa quite quickly), and I often had 5-10 minutes of nothing to do but stare at the board (placing the occasional slave or plantation, which doesn't typically require too much thought), and watching the roles that I would have taken disappear, one by one, until it was my turn to choose. (I think this also shows that my playing was fairly sound--I was predicting with fair accuracy what roles each player would pick on their turn.) Of course, once every 25 minutes or so I would get to pick first but usually I had thought through my strategy before then, so I picked a role and it was back to staring at the board. I think I came in third, but there was nothing in the game that made me want to play again. I might try the 2P variant, as it would seem to give each player much more control over the game. (I vastly prefer 2P San Juan to multiplayer.)
I really wanted to like the game; I love Princes of Florence and Taj Mahal (listed here because they are also in the Alea bookcase line), but it just seemed pretty cold and there was zero player interaction. Actually, there was almost no conversation at all for the 2-3 hours the game took to play, which is unusual in our group and sort of defeats one of the purposes of gaming for me. No jokes, no banter, just people staring at the board. Weird, and not at all like our games of Tikal, Taj Mahal, etc., which are pretty lively with our group. Even if the mechanices of a game are interesting, I still want the game to be fun to play.
|
Brian Newman
United States Portland Oregon
|
I think the fun in T&E comes not from the table talk (which our group does some of during T&E but not as much as normal) but rather from the challenging tactical decisions that you get to make in the game. It's a true brain-burner, and the group has to be in the right mood for it. If your group is looking for something like Bang!, this isn't it.
|
Scott Nicholson
United States Fayetteville New York
|
repguy28@aol.com wrote: I would only add, that as a beginner in this game you should play with open scores. I'll add caution to this statement. I played it when it first game out with open scores and hated it. The game took forever, as people spent a long time planning out their moves considering all of the scores. I didn't play it again until about a year ago, playing with closed scores, and enjoyed it much better. The game flowed more smoothly as people didn't continue to ask where everyone stood in order to plan and plot their moves. My advice on this one - ask if the new player prefers Acquire with open or closed stocks. If they have an opinion, then use that same method in E&T.
|
Marshall P.
United States Wichita Kansas
|
dcjackso wrote: Thank for the comments. I'll doubt I'll play E & T online, because I don't know of a decent AI, and my (albeit few) experiences with online gaming suggest that there isn't much learning to be had for newbies. You play, get crushed quickly by someone who has played hundreds or thousands of times (and perhaps gives you the occassional snotty comment about a "dumb" move), and that's it. Daren, please send me a PM if you are interested in an online game. It is right here on BGG and is not against and AI. I have played many learning games here on BGG, I have other players lined up who will gladly join. We don't play rudely or cut-throat. In a learning game we play to give the new player enough strategy and understanding to hold his own in his next game. Consider giving it a try.
|
Houserule Jay
Canada Mississauga Ontario
|
This thread is really starting to look like the thread in the Dungeon Twister category. The game isn't an abstract but I would argue that it "plays" like one for the most part, and to me and lots of others it feels dry. Brainburner is right on as with DT and you either like those games or you don't. The big difference here is everyone knows before playing this what they're in for where as with DT, the theme fools a lot of people. I felt like you after a couple of games of this because the scoring seemed convolted to me, but to me it also means the game is quite "deep" which intrigues me further and warrants more plays, where as with lots of others it will scare them away. If you like deep strategy type games you should really take up some 'geeks' here on their offer to play online, then they can point out to you the Subtleties and deeper strategy while playing helping you to "get it". Although I would not classify the game in the top 10 category for fun, it is definitely a top 10 game for strategy I can see and it would be a shame to own it but give up playing it before understanding all the intricacies. One more thing on PR and SJ, I find I like 3 player San Juan over 2, 2 seems to boil down too much to just a race. If you have only played 5 player PR, I would highly suggest playing with 2, 3 or 4. You will like it much better as the downtime is obviously much less. PR is a far superior game IMHO with more strategic choices.
Last edited on 2006-01-18 12:00:19 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Jason Little
United States Eden Prairie Minnesota
|
AllenDoum wrote: Don't think of anything on the board as belonging to you. That can be a tough mindset to lose. but even your leaders are just a opportunity to score points, and sometimes it is the other player who can use that opportunity. This was my biggest hurdle to overcome -- viewing a certain kingdom as "mine" that I had to defend or build up w/o realizing how fragile it might be to conflict... Sometimes losing in one place opens up a key opportunity elsewhere. I've now played 12 times (online included) and while my rating has slowly creeped up, I'm still overwhelmed by the game and RARELY ever know what I should do with my turn. I simply can't see far enough ahead strategically to plan, so I usually just try to gain 1 cube in whatever my current lowest color is.
|
kris wolff
United States poulsbo Washington
|
I've only played the game a few times now, so I'm by no means an expert, but here is my strategy, which seems to work well:
Try to grab points in the colors you're lacking, while keeping points away from your opponent(s) in the colors they're lacking. (I don't even really even worry about the treasures)
...it seems like a duh-duh strategy, but I merely focus on that. For example, in our game last week I had a TON of blue (something like 30 of them and only about 10 of the other colors). I knew my wife didn't have much blue. So, I decided to keep my blue leader near the blue monuments, not so I would get more blue, but so she wouldn't get much blue. I knew we both had an "average" amount of black also. I knew she was going to make a conflict with our black leaders, so I considered removing mine on my turn or trying to make it more difficult for her, but then I simply realized that it wouldn't affect the outcome of the game, so I let her win it (and made sure to look frustrated when she did, just in case she wasn't paying much attention).
Anyways, it is an odd game because some of the things one is comfortable with in other games just don't apply (like considering areas "my area" or "their area". Also, the idea of monopolizing a color doesn't really benefit you -- except that it might keep that color out of your opponents' hands).
|
Roberto Ullfig
United States Chicago Illinois
|
cscottk wrote: I was part of Daren's game as well. I only lost by 1 cube, and for what he knew, I knew even less. I don't think I have felt more clueless in my entire life playing a game. I've seen newbies do very well in T&E. I think the reason is the interconnection between the players. It's very easy for one player to give the game away to another player. If you were new and finished well it was probably because the other players did not think you were much of a threat and concentrated on the other more experienced players. In a way the game plays much like Diplomacy - another game in which a total newbie can come out on top.
|
|
|
There are somewhat contradictory elements. On one hand, no kingdom is strictly 'yours' and you can often find great scoring opportunities in other areas of the board. OTOH, concentrating on kingdom means it's harder for other people to disrupt you by throwing their own leaders in, and you can concentrate on making a solid defensive position with balanced colors and strong connections.
One thing that can happen is people build up their own little areas. Then they run into each other and fight. Suddenly, those strong points become full of holes as tiles and leaders are taken off the board. So people can move in and exploit those positions.
|
Savino Palumbo
United States Baltimore Maryland
|
dcjackso wrote: Re: aggressiveness in PR, I don't think of PR as being a particularly aggressive game; more of a solitaire affair (which isn't bad in itself), except for the all-important screw-you mechanic in choosing roles (especially the captain).
Whoa, not to hijack the thread topic, but if you view PR as a solitaire game in any way, you should probably play it a few more times. 90 percent of plays that I make in PR are based on what my opponents are doing. Stuff like -plantation selection. The plantation you select is largely affected by what others are producing -building selection. There are limited quantities of each building, so timing is everything. Not to mention, you need to be taking buildings that will cancel advantages your opponents have over you -using captain to manipulate the cargo ships. This topic could have pages written about it. I'd go on, but it would take too much thread space in a non-PR related thread. My point is, in PR your actions have far-reaching implications for all players for the duration of the game. It isn't even close to being multiplayer solitaire. That being said, Tigris and Euphrates is EVEN LESS of a solitaire experience than PR! All the games I've played of it have been brutal and cutthroat. Kicking out opponents' leaders to steal the treasures right from under their noses, devastating kingdoms with massive external conflicts, fighting for control of monuments, disaster tiles on critical areas and then moving in for the kill, etc. To me, Tigris and Euphrates is an abstract wargame. It's almost like some kind of strange, geometric Risk variant with tiles instead of units. Ok, well not really, but hopefully you see my point. This is a game based on CONFLICT.
|
andrew fawcett
Wales COWBRIDGE
|
Try playing a game or two on-line at BGG. Moving the mouse over leaders helps you to see when attacks might be advantageous, or when you are at risk yourself.
You will also see what are the typical moves that people make, which helps you to "get into it". For most games, the scoring is "open", which helps you to decide what to do.
Also, you can print out key board positions, and/or print out all the moves then replay the game on the board. (I promise I haven't actually done that).
Best of all, you get the feel of what works, and what doesn't.
The only risk is that, like me, you might get addicted to playing on-line...
|
|
|