Talk:Arimaa/Trap Control

Replace or add example?
Should replace  on this page? Or should both be here? The former would probably fit better here than its current location, since the advanced rabbits are incidental. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Shared control
The lede should better define "shared" control. In the first diagram, does the situation around c6 count? If an elephant alone can "share" control with multiple enemy pieces, then "attacking" should be redefined. "Attacking usually refers to advancing a non-elephant piece with a threat to share control of an enemy trap." That implies that an elephant next to a trap does not necessarily "own" or "share" it, even though the elephant protects against capture in that trap. I'm not sure which direction to go here. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 06:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The definition of "shared control" most consistent with how it tends to be used would probably include having at least as many pieces next to the trap as the opponent does. However, the first diagram currently doesn't show that at all. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 05:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems I broke it with this edit; before that there was no definition of shared control, and I didn't bother distinguishing between a low-level tactical definition ("both sides have a piece nearby") and the more common strategic meaning (something like "the ability to durably control a key square with a non-elephant"). I prefer the latter; perhaps the former should be renamed "contested control". The current definition of "contested" is narrower, and I'm not sure it's useful.


 * I don't think your definition is right. I like the first diagram because it's a fairly minimal example of the strategic value of shared control. The horse not being on a key square is deliberate, making it look more strategic and less tactical. Risteall (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose replacing the entire current lede with these two sentences: "A trap can be deadlocked, contested, or owned. In a deadlocked or contested trap, nothing can be captured unless an overall shift gives one side ownership of the trap." Perhaps integrate the entire bullet point list into the Attacking chapter. Not sure about the first diagrammed example, but it should at least be moved below the illustrations of deadlocked and contested traps. The result will be a more logical introduction to trap control. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 05:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with any of that. The problem is that when I wrote the current lede I focused on the strategic advantage of trap control, which didn't seem to be well addressed anywhere, and the topic of the page remains inconsistent. However, I think that the strategic value is the more important aspect, and the deadlocked/contested aspect should perhaps be de-emphasised. I don't know how to integrate them. Risteall (discuss • contribs) 22:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Contested Traps example
The current "Contested Traps" example is the exact same position used in the Camel Hostage chapter, and is also rather lopsided in favor of Gold. It might be hard to find another example where all four traps are "contested" by the definition given here, but this example should probably be replaced if a better one can be found. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't a great example, but I don't find the sections on deadlocked and contested traps useful anyway. Ideally they would be deleted, but they need a replacement and writing is hard. Risteall (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the current Deadlocked Traps section is useful. It shows how both sides can have a large stake around the same trap, and how the rest of the board can be affected. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)