Game: Ponte del Diavolo

Thread: Re: Confusion about placement rules

molnar — 2008-11-13T18:16:02+00:00

Your islands cannot touch any other pieces of your own color, even diagonally. It's a great rule, actually - it allows some really nasty play. A good game to learn online for this reason; the program only allows legal moves and keeps score to boot. I've played over 200 games of it at yucata, fairly sure there aren't any bugs.

Thread: Re: Confusion about placement rules

Websteria — 2008-11-13T17:56:08+00:00

So is it any island cannot be touching any other sandbank? Or your own islands cannot be touching any other sandbank of your own color?

Thread: Re: Confusion about placement rules

koehn — 2008-11-13T17:21:19+00:00

Any one of those moves would create an island which is touching a sandbank diagonally, thus breaking the distance rule. Sandbanks (groups of up to three tiles) can touch diagonally. Islands (groups of four tiles) cannot touch sandbanks or other islands.

Thread: Confusion about placement rules

Websteria — 2008-11-13T16:46:51+00:00

]]>

According to this layout, as brown, why can I not place at:

B3/D3/D8/C2/B8?

What am I missing, please help! Or is this a bug?

Image

EYE of NiGHT — 2008-11-05T21:45:47+00:00

Martin Ebel - designer of Ponte del Diavolo - at Essen 2008

Thread: GAMES Magazine -- Best Abstract Strategy Game Award for 2009.

qswanger — 2008-10-20T00:19:39+00:00

Ponte del Diavolo has won this award. Congratulations Martin!

http://www.funagain.com/control/productaward/~award_year=200...

Thread: Using the Ponte set to play another game

qswanger — 2008-10-19T22:43:02+00:00

This is not exactly a variant, but I've been aware of another intriguing game for a while now called Taiji. Interestingly, it can be played using the Ponte board and pieces! Go here and read to the bottom for details:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2743045#2743045

Thread: A Deluxe Solution to the Game Board Problem?

sysyphus — 2008-07-19T05:46:50+00:00

My enjoyment of Ponte del Diavolo has been significantly marred by a poor quality game board. Tiles slip on the board and the squares are barely discernable. A number of posts on the 'geek seem to agree with this, many having forsaken the real game for online play.

However, I found a solution which significantly enhances the playability of the games for me, and which I thought others might find useful.

The Scrabble Deluxe board and tiles are almost an exact fit to the bridge pieces. Use rows 1-10 and columns A-J (or whichever 10x10 grid on the board works for you) and 80 Scrabble tiles (40 with a distinguishing sticker in the recess on the back - I used a black circle) and the bridges fit perfectly into the circular recesses when the tiles are placed letter side down into the board.

With 20 extra tiles in total, one can even experiment with an 11x11 board and 2 x 50 = 100 tiles in total.

I realise that this means replacing most of the PdD components for the Scrabble components. On the other hand those with a Scrabble Deluxe set only need to find bridge piece of the appropriate length...

Thread: Re: Tournament on Yucata?

boomtron — 2008-06-11T23:06:51+00:00

I would be in. Keep us updated with details!

Thread: Tournament on Yucata?

qswanger — 2008-06-11T18:48:15+00:00

Hi,

I'm wondering how much interest there would be in organizing a tournament on Yucata.de for Ponte del Diavolo. Here is the text of my reply to the Yucata discussion board thread regarding the topic of tournaments (http://www.yucata.de/default.aspx?PageID=20&postid=2194&Foru...):

"I would *love* to see a tournament specific to Ponte del Diavolo. Ponte has no luck and I think would definitely benefit from having some sort of ELO rating list associated with it. I fancy myself a fairly good Ponte player and would like to see how I genuinely stack up against other players here. Ponte takes no more than a total of 50 moves (give or take 2 or 3) and I think a tournament could be organized without too much effort, relatively speaking, though coming up with fair time controls might be tricky. Even though Ponte is a relatively new game, because it is a deep, abstract 2-player strategy game, I say we need a World Champion! I think I could find at *least* a dozen players that would be interested in participating. I believe the creator, Martin Ebel, would be fully behind and endorse this idea."

Comments?

"Zugzwang"

Thread: Re: Board design

qswanger — 2008-05-23T17:11:59+00:00

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with GeoMan here, but I've actually got a problem with the quality of the game components in general. I've been playing Ponte on Yucata for a while now and I absolutely LOVE the game (hence my rating of 10!). It is a brilliant game concept, has a lot of replayability, and really satisfies those looking for a cerebral challenge. However, my most recent Board and Bits order came 2 days ago (including the just released TZAAR) and I have to say that I'm a little disappointed ...

First of all, the board really is lousy:
1) It is way too small. I was expecting something heftier, meatier.
2) You cannot discern the squares on the board very well (like someone else posted here I had to use a light tipped pen to draw in the edges of the squares), and
3) The pieces slide around too much (a Blokus-style, ridged design would really serve this game well).

Perhaps I'm unfairly (or unconsciously?) comparing the Ponte components to the quality of the TZAAR components since I opened and played the games at roughly the same time (e.g., hefty Bakelite pieces, big, sturdy board, etc.).

Also, regarding the bridges, it's very difficult to get the bridges on the tiles straight except for those with the most steadiest and patient of hands. A diagonal bridge just barely fits on the squares and can very easily get knocked off. All of this was really distracting from my concentration and my enjoyment of this game OTB.

If this game is ever rereleased and the game components redesigned, I will be first in line to get a copy, but as of right now I much prefer to play it online. Not that I'll ever turn down a game, but I think a game that is so intriguing and addictive really deserves to have been
manufactured much better. I understand cost was probably a contributing if not major factor, but I've read so many times from people here on the Geek that they will absolutely pay for quality. I know I would.

Also, before I go, I have a problem with the rules and I don't think it's a translation issue. My biggest beef is that the listed "aim" is not even accurate and can be downright misleading to a beginner. The aim is to have more points by games end than your opponent, plain and simple! This does not necessarily equate to "create as many islands as you can and connect them to each other with bridges". It is HOW you connect them that matters. You can have less total islands than your opponent, but if they are in a more efficient bridge network, you will get more points and win.

Ok, I'll stop now. Anyone for some Ponte del Diavolo? Look for me on Yucata ... I'm "Zugzwang".

Thread: Re: Reviewing games on Yucata

gdotambler — 2008-05-07T21:23:22+00:00

looking that game with Molnar, i am ashamed how greedy i was. Thats why I made two great mistakes.
But a nice beginning.

Thread: Re: Rules Clarification

Drew1365 — 2008-05-07T21:00:50+00:00

This situation has popped up several times in games I've played, and I've never considered that it wouldn't be allowed . . . I guess because a bridge fits there.

Thread: Re: Rules Clarification

gdotambler — 2008-05-07T20:51:57+00:00

Yes: It is allowed to build parallel "knights-move" bridges.
The bridges have to cross over empty spaces.
The rule only show were you are not allowed to lay down tiles.

I have soon read about that question (here or at yucata.de, i can not remember).
I hope, the answer will not give youer opponent a extra chance

Thread: Re: Rules Clarification

ekted — 2008-05-07T17:24:46+00:00

Wow, that is a really good question. I can't believe it hasn't come up after all this time.

Thread: Re: Rules Clarification

booned — 2008-05-07T16:17:16+00:00

I know nothing in the rules that would prevent B3-D2. As you say, the rules say bridges only prevent tiles from being placed in the spaces under them, it doesn't say anything about sharing the space above them with another bridge.

The way I think of it is that nothing is allowed to overlap (excepting of course bridges on the two tiles they are resting on). Placing a tile on C3 would cause a tile to be overlapped by a bridge. But a bridge could be placed over the other half of the same space and no overlap happens because the bridges are parallel, so it's OK. This is the mental model that works for me.

Even if this is not mentioned in the rules, if this was restricted, I would assume the rules would say so explicitly.

Thread: Rules Clarification

qswanger — 2008-05-07T14:56:26+00:00

I think I know what the answer to this is going to be (just based upon what makes sense physically in the game), but the rules are not clear in the situation below regarding building bridges. Let's say that the Light player (O's) has just built a "knight's move" bridge connection from B4-D3. The rules state that a tile cannot then be placed under C4 or C3. This is quite clear. However, is it legal or illegal for the Dark player (X's) to subsequently build a bridge from B3-D2? In this situation tiles would not be able to be played under C3 and C2. The bridges do not overlap and they are built on individual tiles. The problem I'm grappling with here is that the C3 space effectively becomes a *dual* restricted space. Do the rules prevent the building of a bridge over a space that already has another bridge at least partially over it? Thank you in advance for any replies.

5 . . . . .
4 . O . . .
3 . X . O .
2 . . . X .
1 . . . . .
A B C D E

Thread: Re: A good game, with a few costly mistakes.

molnar — 2008-05-06T07:33:16+00:00

Move 13 was a bridge d6-f6. There was never a tile placed at e6.

Thread: Re: Reviewing games on Yucata

molnar — 2008-05-06T07:04:34+00:00

I'm quite certain the scoring system would be completely out of control even on a 14x14. That is to say, the object of the game would now be "get the largest chain of connected islands", which is much less subtle than what we have now. Your focus would narrow, removing a lot of "but what if..." from the decision-making. I'll have to refresh my memory on joseki.

Here's the Martin Ebel game I was thinking of:
http://www.yucata.de/Pages/Members/game25.aspx?ID=103102&His...
It was actually higher-scoring than I thought (14-11). But note the very weird opening.

And what the hell, here's one I lost, 13-12:
http://www.yucata.de/Pages/Members/game25.aspx?ID=102715&His...

and, one I won 6-4:
http://www.yucata.de/Pages/Members/game25.aspx?ID=187705&His...

often the low-scoring games require a bit more creative thinking in terms of extending sandbars to use as intermediate connections between islands, without extending so much that it takes away from your ability to create islands in the first place.

Thread: Re: Reviewing games on Yucata

qswanger — 2008-05-06T01:31:57+00:00

Yep, the link worked. That was a very tense, instructive, nail-biting game. Can you post a low scoring, defensive, blocking game now? I think that those can be just as instructive, if not more so, than the high scoring ones. If for nothing else I think that it's less intuitive, (though just as viable?) to play that way.

On a side note ...
The pacing and complexity of this 10x10 board size is very reminicent of 9x9 Go to me. So, I got to thinking, would 20X20 rise to the pacing and complextity of 19x19 Go? And, as a "compromise", would 14x14 Ponte be a viable next board size to try out (comparable to standard mid-size 13x13 Go) for us who might become hardcore after a while? That would equate to 196 squares (almost double the current size), necessitating 80 tiles for *each* player plus 30 bridges. This could be very interesting. I envision whole joseki being created, etc., etc. My only reservation would be that the cumulatively increasing scoring mechanism might not scale very well and could get out of control (but perhaps not). Comments?

Thread: Re: Reviewing games on Yucata

molnar — 2008-05-06T00:56:29+00:00

qswanger wrote:
in some games, they were defensive, blocking style games with low scores and in others they were high scoring connection fests.

Exactly. Well, in the high-scoring connection fests, it is very helpful to leave places where you are guaranteed to be able to place a bridge later. But, one has to be careful towards the end that your opponent will not be able to end the game before you are done connecting up your islands. Here is a game where I didn't think I'd be able to finish in time, but I won 37-36, with no moves to spare. My opponent was smitty, who I've beaten three times but they were all uncomfortably close.
http://www.yucata.de/Pages/Members/game25.aspx?ID=185006&His...

Let me know if the link works. I'll have more later.

Thread: Re: Reviewing games on Yucata

qswanger — 2008-05-05T20:31:54+00:00

That's a great idea David. I remember seeing several interesting diverse games of yours. By diverse I mean in some games, they were defensive, blocking style games with low scores and in others they were high scoring connection fests. I was only able to view them from your history when you were online. Can you post them here so I/we can go back over them. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Reviewing games on Yucata

molnar — 2008-05-05T20:10:13+00:00

You know, I've been meaning to write up a session report for a game I played on Yucata with Martin Ebel several months ago. The screenshots are in my gallery, but the accompanying text has not yet magically appeared.

But in the meantime, we could use this thread as a "post links to your interesting games", which would require only a brief description of why you found it interesting, rather than a full-blown report. I will instigate this shortly - I had a 37-36 game recently, which was a bit insane.

Thread: Reviewing games on Yucata

qswanger — 2008-05-05T16:43:21+00:00

I've enjoyed the strategy guide by shagiephoto as well as his two annotated games with commentaries (#s 98877 & 102686). This has been a big help with developing my interest for this game since I come from the Chess and Go world where having analyses like these are beneficial for improving my play. However, when I tried to figure out how to replay the two games on the website, it was not immediately clear how to do that. I don't have a Ponte set (yet) and so playing out the moves by hand was not an option.

I stummbled upon the url for reviewing the games on Yucata, but it assumes that you know the game number. Here it is: http://www.yucata.de/Pages/Members/game25.aspx?ID=102686&His...
All you have to do is paste this in your web browser and change the game ID number. I also had to remove the status bar so that I could see the move navigator. Worked great. I just hope we'll see more commented games here for this really, really cool new game!

Image

Artax — 2008-05-03T16:52:19+00:00

Bridges

Image

Trollkin — 2008-03-30T16:04:56+00:00

The end of an exciting game which ended in a draw

Image

spearjr — 2008-03-28T12:01:10+00:00

Online Interface on Yucata.de (Updated Graphics)

Thread: Re: First two plays w/ the spouse

Hendal — 2008-03-21T16:15:12+00:00

New one to me, doesn't sound so bad, just a heads up on games being good bad or ugly to play with the wife is cool 0 thanks for the heads up......

Thread: First two plays w/ the spouse

TrojanDan — 2008-03-20T01:03:11+00:00

Game 1

There is nothing really to gain from the first game except that A) I didn't explain the rules well or B) the wife didn't understand my explanation, or C) both could have been true. She confused the islands are 4 squares that are connected to each other by at least one side and the rule that two islands cannot touch diagonally (or as I explained it "Blokus"-like).

She also didn't quite grasp that as long as you don't make sandbars into islands you can have pieces touch diagonally.

XX XX
XX
22 11

The other problem was that she didn't exhibit through gameplay that she didn't understand the rules completely until her next to last turn. Where she played her last tile in the 11 spot instead of the 22 spot. And when I asked her why she didn't make an island to score at least 1 point, she said, "But I did".

Of course, I beat her soundly in this mulligan game 17-6.

Game 2

In the second game, I focused my strategy on blocking her connections (as is typical of our game play - me the aggressor and she the pacifist who ironically gets angry at the aggressor). She on the otherhand focused on expanding and spreading out her tiles all over the board.

She ended the game with three 2-island groups and two single islands for a total of 11 points. I ended the game with one each of 3-island, 2-island, and single island. And ended the game with only 10 points. It was a very close game. I made a costly error at the very end that would have allowed me to at least tie the game with another single island.

From this game, I learned you cannot play only defensively in the Devil's Bridge.

Oh well! At least the wife will play the game again.

I think she wanted more theme when she bought this for my birthday present. (She abhors playing games in the Project GIPF series and pretty much any abstract or mental rotations game like Rumis or Blokus). So if your gaming partner, lover, or spouse is of the same ilk, you'd do well in avoiding this game, methinks.

Thread: Re: Diagonally-conneceted Sandbanks?

NJames — 2008-03-11T12:19:26+00:00

The odd part here is that on Yucata.de diagonally adjacent sandbanks ARE allowed to connect islands. Hmmm...

No, scratch that. Yucata scores correctly I just don't count correctly. Hmmm...

Image

Geosmores — 2008-01-04T02:33:00+00:00

Close up of island tiles.

Image

Geosmores — 2008-01-04T02:32:22+00:00

Close up of bridge pieces.

Image

Geosmores — 2008-01-04T02:31:38+00:00

Close up of game in play.

Image

Toynan — 2007-12-15T17:58:25+00:00

Close up on a bridge

Thread: Re: Review of Ponte del Diavolo

craniac — 2007-12-15T16:46:18+00:00

by "easily remedied" are you suggesting combining sets?

Image

Toynan — 2007-12-09T14:49:41+00:00

Image

Toynan — 2007-12-09T14:49:10+00:00

Close up

Thread: Re: Bridge quality

eyeandear — 2007-12-06T09:20:10+00:00

The bridges are better black! They are more easily seen and compliment the colors of the tiles and board. I'm going to paint mine asap.

Thread: Re: Diagonally-conneceted Sandbanks?

kdean1 — 2007-11-10T02:23:53+00:00

Joe,
The light just came on for me. I missed the fact that the sandbanks of 1 square each are not considered connected on the diagonal. I'm new to the game. I need to play it a few more times to become really comfortable with it.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Thread: Re: Diagonally-conneceted Sandbanks?

the_kid — 2007-11-09T21:49:48+00:00

Yes I'm sure. Right now his example is 2 separate islands, the sandbanks aren't connected so the don't connect the islands. If he adds one x to the 2 not connected sandbanks they now are connected thereby connecting the islands, which is 3 points. If he fills in both spots, he has 3 connected islands for 6 points.

Thread: Re: Diagonally-conneceted Sandbanks?

kdean1 — 2007-11-09T21:34:59+00:00

the_kid wrote:
Your example is worth 2 points. Fill in one of the 2 spots next to those sandbanks to make it a 3 sandbank and you get 3 points, both spots to make it an island and get 6 points.

Are you sure of that scoring example? My set of rules (english) says in it's own example: "Dark has 2 (over a sand bank) islands (3 points) and 2 solitary islands (2 points):5 points."
The rules also state: "Each player scores his islands. A solitary island, that is not connected by a bridge to any other islands or sandbanks, scores 1 point."

As I understand it, sandbanks, which are less than 4 squares, do not score any points. They can be used with bridges to connect islands and thereby increase the score.

Thread: A Worthy Tribute & Game

MENAREUS2000 — 2007-10-12T17:52:22+00:00

I'll admit right from the start, that I'm a lover of Abstract Strategy Games. Keep in mind though, that I usually pass on many of the games that come along under the Abstract Category. Why? Because many of them add on rules or exceptions to rules, in an attempt to make their game more abstract and complicated than they really are.

I've always believed that Abstract Strategy Games should be simple, with few rules and a clear goal. With that said, Ponte Del Diavolo passes with flying colors.

THE GOAL:

To create as many islands with titles as you can and to connect them with bridges. The players that does that best, wins.

THE COMPONENTS:

-Board which fold in half
-40 light tiles
-40 dark tiles
-15 Bridges
-1 cloth bag

The tiles and bridges are all made out of wood.

THE RULES:

The light tile player starts out by placing 2 tiles on any two squares of the 10x10 board. The dark tile player can then decide to either play the light tiles for the rest of the game or to continue playing the dark tiles by then placing 2 of them on any empty squares on the board.

On a turn, instead of placing 2 tiles, you can choose to build a bridge between two of your own colored tiles. Bridges can be placed if one of 3 ways.

(1) Vertically or horizontally across 3 squares, with one empty square beneath the bridge.
(2) A knight Move, where the ends of the bridge rest on where a chess knight would start and end a move. In this case two squares must be vacant beneath the bridge.
(3) Diagonally across 3 diagonal squares with 1 empty square beneath the bridge.

Each title represents a land mass, with 1,2, or 3 adjacent titles being considered sandbanks and 4 adjacent tiles being considered Islands. An Island can not be adjacent to any other land mass of it's own color, including diagonally. Light and dark tiles can freely being placed next to one another.

ENDING THE GAME:

If the light tile player cannot place any more tiles and chooses not to place a bridge if possible, the dark tile player gets one last turn before the game is scored.

SCORING THE GAME:

Islands all by themselves, without bridges, are worth 1 point each. Islands that are connected by bridges are scored depending upon how many Islands are connected.

2 Islands = 3 Points
3 Islands = 6 Points
4 Islands = 10 Points
5 Islands = 15 Points
6 Islands = 21 Points
7 Islands = 28 Points
8 Islands = 36 Points

In the event of a tie, the person with the most Islands on the board wins. If these are tied, the person with the most bridges wins. If these are tied (unlikely) it's considered a draw.

THOUGHTS ON THE GAME:

Ponte Del Diavolo is one of those rare games with few and simples rules that offers the player so many choices each turn. Do you place a bridge to keep your opponent from playing titles on a certain square. Do you place a tiles in such a way as to keep your opponent from being able to build a bridge. Deciding on the best 4 title formations for your Islands all by itself is fun. The game is suppose to represent the bridges and waterways found in Venice. During the course of a game, it's a joy seeing it all come to life. According to the box, this game was invented in memory of Alex Randolph who invented the famous Twixt game. I imagine that Mr. Randolph must be somewhere smiling, with the release of this wonderful new game.

Thread: Re: A good game, with a few costly mistakes.

ekted — 2007-10-12T02:52:13+00:00

I tried to play this out. I think the annotation is wrong. d6 is shown twice (moves 11 and 13) and e6 (move 13) is illegal.

Thread: Re: Board design

GeoMan — 2007-09-25T22:33:37+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
...except that the game was awfully boring.

Give it another try. In our first game we were building next to each other trying to make islands quickly (and outmaneuver the opponent). The game seemed so-so.

After a couple of games we realized that the player who planed ahead instead of just replying to the opponent's moves, was usually the victor in the end.

1. Making islands early gives you sure points but denies you all adjacent places for building.

2. Leaving islands unfinished helps you with future building around them but your opponent can easily block them.

3. Try to make "safe" places were the opponent can't put a tile. You can always fill it later (if you leave too many safe places to fill later watch out for the end of the game because you may have no time to fill them all!).

Thread: Re: Board design

booned — 2007-09-25T21:12:15+00:00

I agree that the pieces can slide around, but I've only played on a flat table so I didn't think much of it. Since the spaces are larger than the pieces, however, it's really easy for stuff to go out of alignment. Not a problem per se, but I like everything kept in its place.

My only real complaint is that the edges of the spaces are only marked by a faint indent, making the spaces hard to see in all but the best of light. You can figure it out from the piece sizes, of course, it's just an annoyance.

Great game. I'm not normally a fan of abstracts but I really like this one. I'm having an amazing game right now with someone at Yucata.de, a real nailbiter of a game.

Thread: Re: A good game, with a few costly mistakes.

gdotambler — 2007-09-23T22:43:47+00:00

WOW! What a dramatic description.
Molnar is realy quit good finding the mistakes of his opponent.
i can say

Thread: Re: Board design

molnar — 2007-09-22T17:49:07+00:00

Dude, you're playing it wrong.

Thread: Re: Board design

Great Dane — 2007-09-22T11:57:21+00:00

Have only played it once, but that was on an old unstable table in the garden. We didn't notice any problems - except that the game was awfully boring.

Thread: Board design

GeoMan — 2007-09-22T08:57:12+00:00

Anyone else noticed that the design of the board helps the pieces slide around instead of keeping them in place?

You can't play the game if you don't have a perfectly flat surface and you aren't very careful when placing tiles/bridges.

I wonder who designed this board...

Thread: A good game, with a few costly mistakes.

shagiephoto — 2007-09-21T07:12:37+00:00

Game #102686 from Yucata.

I played black, Molnar played white. Comments between moves prefixed with 'white:' or 'black:' were in game chat. Longer comments on the move were post game analysis. The notation includes some punctuation that is found in chess games. Pointing out good moves, mistakes and blunders that I have missed will be appreciated.

[c]1 c4,g8 e7,f7 - no swap
3 g7,g6 f5,g3
5 f6,d4 d5,e5 - 1,0
7 h3,h4 e3,f3[/c]

black: Not sure if this move is good or bad, but I"m not sure I have an option there to have any chance of not wasteing that tile.

White's original thoughts here was to play f4,g4 instead of h3,h4. This would have lead to the response of f3,h4 by black which would have essentialy wasted the move by white. Another option was f3,f4; however this would have left black on the 'outside with more room to move around. The choice of h3,h4 ultimately lead to holding black back from being able to do signficant development in the southeast.

[c]9 g6-h4 f5-f3[/c]

white: don't like to play a bridge that early, but you could have played g5, i5.

black: that was indeed my mistake, though if you were to play c5,c6 it would have been even worse for me.

white: but I wouldnt have got my bridge.

[c]11 c6,d6 c5,a5 - 1,1[/c]

If black didn't play c5, a bridge from c6-c4 would have relegated 2.5 moves to a connecting sandbar. Additionaly, the move a5 was necessary to take the initative for a bridge from a5-c5. Failing this, white's move of b4,b6 (later played with move 15) would have allowed white to enclose black's long central island.

[c]13 d6,e6 a6,a7[/c]

Black: Of note, I have to play to develo a5 or lose it. Likewise, a4,a6 would have let you play a3,a7. I have to play two up or two down.

[c]15 b4,b6 a5-c5
17 h2,h1 d7,f8 - 3,2[/c]

I didn't want to play d7,b7 - that would force a response of c7 and might make connecting those two harder later. Without making the threat immediate, might have a chance to fork it later. Additionaly, given a c7 play, might play something else so that I have more manuverability - the bridge at a5 caps the end of that island, a play at a4 gives additional bridging options in the southwest.

[c]19 c7,e10 d10,f10 - 6,2[/c]

With a threat of not being able to link to the east side from white g8-e10, f8-d10 makes that tile worthless - and forces the bridge now. This bridge is inevitable and likely would have been played as soon as a threat is made on it. The key point in black forcing the move is that delay would allow white to develop e10 more.

[c]21 g8-e10 d9,b7 - 6,4[/c]

Give the option of linking the central island through b7-d9 and f8-d10.

[c]23 e9,c9 g10,h10
25 e2,f2 d3,b1! - 6,7[/c]

white: hey, that specific move is something I think you should comet on in the guide. b1,d3 prevents me from getting both bridges.

This gives black the setup for forks. Also note the safe tiles of g1,f1,e1 and space for d1 - an island without threat.

[c]27 c2,d2? b3,g1 - 7,7[/c]

white: c2, d2 was a terible move for me - c2 is redundant, really.

Black is now set up to certainly a link around the outside. A better move for white would have been to remove the possibility of that run around with d2,d1 or a smilar move. A play at d1 would have been especialy good in removing the ability for black to build an island of d1,e1,f1,g1 (which ultimately is done)

[c]29 h2-f2 b3-d3 - 10,7
31 b9,a1 b2,a1 - 10,11
33 b10,i8 h9,h7! - 10,12[/c]

The move at h7 blocks the ability for white to connect to i8. The only remaining bridges to the j row are from h3 and h1.

[c]35 c9-c7 h6,i6
37 i9,j5 h9,h7
39 j3,j6 j4,i7 - 10,14[/c]

j4 blocks the forming island and also prevents an island by white in the southeast. i7 is necessary to prevent either a bridge or a tile by white at i7 making that island impossible for black.

[c]41 h3-j5 c10,d1??[/c]

white: I could have done that better. c10,j10 would have killed one of those

If black had played at j10 instead of d1, either the northwest or the northeast island would have been an impossibility. This mistake by black is worth at least 5 points for white, and ultimately the game.

[c]43 a9,j8 e1,f1 - 15,15
45 e4,j9 i2,j2 - 17,15
47 j6-j8 i1,j1 - 22,16
49 e8,a2 b1,d1 - 22,20
51 --,-- --,--[/c]

Thread: Various points of Ponte del Diavolo strategy

shagiephoto — 2007-09-15T08:23:26+00:00

Before getting to far into this, I must thank molnar - both for the beatings that I have received and for listening to my ramblings in game and out of game on various aspects of Ponte del Diavolo. Without someone to bounce these ideas off of and challenge me while thinking out-loud, this would be much more difficult to write. More than a few of the ideas below were started from messages that he sent me. Other ideas have been brought up in Martin Ebel's post on Yucata forums.

I'm still by far a novice at connection games compared to some I have seen and played. I've got an ok handling on Ponte (better than hex or twixt or more 'pure' games) and these are some thoughts that I have had while playing them

What I am writing serves several purposes. There is hindsight analysis that one can do on past games (particularly those that I have lost). The analysis of where I have messed up and the analysis of the game in general. Just as a student writing down notes has a better understanding of the material, so does the game player writing down what he has learned (or failed to learn) in the past. I also hope that others will contribute to this and work at building a larger body of knowledge on the game.

Openings

While this is still being thought about and tossed around, it *appears* that white's stronger opening is to play away from the center and for black to then play in the center with adjacent tiles.

The reasoning on this is that black has a strong response in the center to two tiles in the center.

For example, if e5,e6 was the opening, black could play e7,f5.

[c]7 .O..
6 .XO.
5 .X..
4 ....
defg[/c]

X could play at f7,?? however, this would in effect waste one and a half moves at the start of the game compared to the effect of causing O to lose one move. Further development of the two tiles into an island would be the best approach from this opening.

We (myself and molnar) have come to the idea that white's best approach to the opening is to play a significant distance apart. One or both of these tiles will be played on the third row (see below). An opening such as c5,h8 may be a strong one despite the appearance of giving up control of the center.

White's natural play would then be building a U around the outside to maximize islands connected while black's natural play is to go from the center to the edge as star.

The value of a tile

Much of the value of a tile depends on where it is located on the board. If that can be ignored for this, the value of a tile depends on how much of an investment there was in its potential to grow.

An isolated tile with no potential connections is worth 0.5 moves.
An isolated pair of tiles with no potential connections is worth 1 move.
An isolated tile with a bridge to it is worth 1.5 moves.
A pair of tiles with a bridge is worth 2 moves.

This only counts the investment and doesn't translate into points well. To translate these tiles into points. The basic part is that it requires a minimum of three moves to build an island with a bridge. This number becomes important in the end game.

Looking at moves is a good metric for playing aggressively when positions are near matched. By playing in a way that makes past moves unable to be developed into scoring positions the

The obvious oversight is that beyond moves, the value of a tile is about how many points it can add. To this extent, it may be more important to block an island connecting to a large chain than adding one to a small chain. Likewise, splitting the board into two goes a ways to restricting points.

More thought on how one weights a tile or island potential is still needed.

Early game

Playing from the wasted move approach to tile placement in the early game appears to be a useful metric. In the early game, if a player can cause his or her opponents tiles to be wasted in restricted areas or sandbars, then there is a significant advantage later in the game - more tiles, more islands.

It is especially critical for black to not waste tiles as it is starting at a tile disadvantage. Likewise, black should avoid making unforced bridges or plays in safe tiles that are not needed for bridging or threats early in the game so that he or she can develop more positions.

Safe tiles

Along the edges of the opponent's islands are 'safe' tiles. These are tiles in which the other player cannot play new tiles. Until there is the danger of a bridge being made, the tile is 'safe'. This does not mean it can be attacked with a bridge.

The Fork

Similar to the idea in chess, the fork is forcing a choice of the lesser of two evils on the opponent. What does he want to do?

The standard form of the fork is where one player has two potential bridges and the other player plays two tiles to make two potential bridges that overlap the first players.

[c]8 .XO.
7 .X..
6 O.OX
5 .XOO
abcd[/c]

At this point, X has to make a decision between b5-b7 and b8-d6. The bridge that is not made will be blocked by c6-c8 or a6-c6 by O.

While the double bridge threat is the most obvious and common, it is not the only fork available.

[c]9 .OOO..
8 X-XO..
7 .OX...
6 .OXXOX
5 .O.O..
4 .OXX..
cdefgh[/c]

Here O has a 'simpler' choice to make. The lesser evil is still quite bad, but the other, slightly more subtle one is devastating. O has the choice of playing a bridge at d5-f5 or playing two tiles at g4,g5. Likewise, X is threatening a bridge e4-e6 and f4-h6. The bridge from f4-h6 would be a significant blow to O in that it makes the tiles f5 and g6 worthless. Neither could ever be developed into an island, nor be part of any connection in an island chain.

Multiple attacks

One of the best structures for multiple attacks that I have found so far is:

[c]8 ..OX
7 ..XX
6 X.O.
5 X.OX
4 ..X/
3 ..O.
2 ....
abcd[/c]

With X playing at a5,a6 this sets up four possible bridges:
* a6-c7
* a6-c4
* a5-c7
* a5-c4

This leaves the only way to block for O to play at b5,b6. A play at either b7 or b4 would leave sandbars that would be difficult to work with later. For X, the followup move is a7,a4:

[c]8 ..OX
7 X.XX
6 XOO.
5 XOOX
4 X.X/
3 ..O.
2 ....
abcd[/c]

This gives X a bridge from a7-c7 that cannot be blocked.

Another example of this structure can be seen at:

[c]8 XXOX..
7 XOOXO.
6 XOXXO.
5 /..OO.
4 ..X..X
3 ..O..O
2 ......
efghij[/c]

Here O again threatens four bridges that can be played. Additionally, if X was to play h4,i4 this would restrict the connections between the island with an end connection at g6 to g4.

In the game where this second example came up, the response made was f4,i4
[c]8 XXOX..
7 XOOXO.
6 XOXXO.
5 /..OO.
4 .XX.XX
3 ..O..O
2 ......
efghij[/c]

This move avoided the trap of getting end capped without other developments available.

Threat management

With two tiles each move, it is quite possible to get in the situation where you have to positions that are open to threat. These lead to forks as seen above. Leaving yourself open to such positions loses momentum.

With each move, look at how that leaves you open to attack and ask yourself if you are willing to make that choice. If you are not, consider a less risky approach to developing the position.

Overly aggressive

One thought in play style is to be very aggressive in play - taking what islands it can but with a primary goal of disrupting the other player's island potentials.

In the early game, this tends to be counter productive. The board is too open and aggressive moves often fail to develop one's own islands at a critical time in the game. It is very easy for any tiles in an open board to form islands.

Later in the game, and up against a wall this can be a useful strategy, especially when one has the point advantage. Be careful though - sandbars are not restricted to build against with another sandbar. If you have counted wrong, this may give the additional time to connect islands and tip the balance.

Connections at the end

If possible, avoid connections from the ends of islands. This makes it more difficult to extend the chain in that direction.

(#98834)
[c]5 XXOXXXXOO.
4 O-OOO/O.X.
3 OXXXX.XX
2 OOOOOOXO
1 XXOOXXO..O
abcdefghij[/c]

Notice the restriction that X has with the bridge from e3 to g5. From this restriction, O was able to have the most significant control of the south eastern section of the board.

The third row

From c3 to c8 to h8 to h3 back to c3 forms the third row or column. This area is of strategic importance. It gives a quick move out to the edge which can block the outside run around a center controlled board. Likewise, it does not make the outside edge into impossible to move places like the second row does.

Leave space for the ending

Given two equivalent positions, leave space for the opponent to play worthless tiles. This gives extra moves at the end of the game that may be the difference between making that bridge or not.

[c]8 XO..
7 X.X
6 ..X.
5 .OX.
4 .OOO
ghij[/c]

The moves i7 and j6 are equivalent in terms of island building and have no importance in blocking the tile at h8 (it is part of an island).

With a play at i7, the space at j6 remains open for O to play into at the end game without development of points. This is in essence, worth half a move at the end of the game.

Disclaimer

By no means are these ideas necessarily the best ones... just the best ones that I am familiar with at this time. I welcome other ideas, corrections and alternate lines of play or theories.

Thread: Re: "island definition" and scoring connected islands

dcjackso — 2007-09-07T06:01:32+00:00

Thanks, all! Now to see if I can convince my wife to play a game of Ponte del Diavolo tonight...("But honey, I had some questions and already posted and had them answered on BGG...")

Thread: Re: "island definition" and scoring connected islands

ekted — 2007-09-07T05:13:17+00:00

The thing that I didn't grasp until I started playing it on Yucata was that you cannot form a connected set of tiles greater than 4. So if you have this shape:

[c] XX
XX
XX aa
bb XX[/c]

You cannot ever play at aa or bb since that will make an "island" of 5 tiles. This is a very important part of the game.

Thread: Re: "island definition" and scoring connected islands

molnar — 2007-09-07T04:50:26+00:00

If you play online at yucata.de, the scoring is done automatically, and it won't let you make illegal moves. So that's a good way to learn the game.

(oh, and "island" is basically equivalent to "Tetris piece".)

Thread: Re: "island definition" and scoring connected islands

ekted — 2007-09-07T04:36:00+00:00

It's orthogonal only. The 1-3-6-10... scoring system is for connected island groups only. So:

[c]ISLAND---ISLAND ISLAND---ISLAND[/c]

is worth 6 points. Also note that sand bars do not break groups for scoring purposes. So:

[c]ISLAND---SANDBAR---ISLAND ISLAND---ISLAND[/c]

is also worth 6 points.

Thread: "island definition" and scoring connected islands

dcjackso — 2007-09-07T04:04:54+00:00

In the English ruleset that came with my game, the definition of "island" runs thusly:
"A grouping of 4 island squares of the same color connected to each other, touching at least along one side is called an island." (emphasis mine)

What does "touching at least along one side" mean? Is it just a reminder that "connected" means orthogonally touching, and not diagonally touching? Or does it mean that at least one piece of the island must be touching the border of the gameboard? (The latter seems far-fetched, but for some reason that's the way I read it as I set the game up tonight for a solo run.)

Also, I'm confused about scoring island connections. If islands A and B are connected, and C and D are connected, but neither A nor B is connected in any way to C or D...is this 3 points (for the AB connection) + 3 points (for the CD connection) = 6 points total? Or is it 10 points for haveing four "island groups connected by bridges." (In other words, to get the 10 points for four connected islands, do they have to run in a chain such that all of them are part of the same connection?)

thanks,
-daren

Thread: highest score

gdotambler — 2007-09-05T12:01:19+00:00

just a story:
I played with my opponent a play, whre we souraunded each user in a spiral from the middle to the outside. I was inside. I lost with 28 points. He won with 36 points. 7 + 8 = 15 bridges. Together 64 points.
I suppose it is the highest score, someone can tell ! or?

Thread: Re: Piece Limits

boomtron — 2007-09-02T13:18:39+00:00

Thanks Martin. Great game!

Thread: Re: A very close game at Yucata

molnar — 2007-09-01T23:16:22+00:00

ekted wrote:
In my last game, I tried to wait to build bridges, and my opponent cut me off building bridges across sand bars. I really like the tension created by all the potential threats.

In my opinion, that is what makes this game so, so much better than Blokus, which has similar placement restrictions - you can "reserve" a space for yourself, but it is often only temporary due to the threat of bridges. You have to be very careful (especially when playing eight games simultaneously on yucata).

Martin, thanks for the post. I'll see if babelfish can make any sense of what you wrote in the yucata forum.

Thread: Re: A very close game at Yucata

gdotambler — 2007-09-01T21:51:50+00:00

Wonderful! Gratulations: I supose, You are the first, who describes the whole play of "ponte del diavolo" in that way of notification.
I once tried it just for a little example.
I play this game more intuiotiv. But i had to learn on yucata.de, that there are some great player, who show me a new Dimension of this game.
Most of them were playing Go, one i know personally loves poker.
In the Forum of Yucata i begun a Thread (german speech) about positions and taktiks (like double attack or the third row, desolate space round sandbanks and forcing time running outat end of the game).
I hope there will be player, who can better analyse, what sorts of tactical knowledge will be in this game.
Excuse my bad english. I hope, you will understand me.