Its been a while since I posted anything here. I just wanted to publish this chess game I played a while ago and do a little analysis on it. This was my first and only time playing an 1800+ player, so this is probably the best of my games that I can learn from.
I think my downfall started at 10. b4. Here is the one thing I didn't consider at the time: The English opening is a defensive opening at heart. After using a defensive opening I violated one of the fundamentals of defense; patience. I lost my patience at move 10 perhaps even at move 9, I was attempting a queenside pawn storm. What I think I really should have been doing was looking for a weakness in my opponent's formation, rather than weakening mine for an attack.
If I had waited a little longer to mobilize my force, I might have been better off.
at 11. h4, I don't know what I was responding to at all. If I was going for the queenside pawnstorm, now would have been the perfect time to add some pressure to that side of the board.
Instead I get stuck trying to make a weak bishop strong again with 11. ... e4 12. f3. My opponent is able to initiate the exchange, which means that f3 was giving my opponent a tempo, which I certainly do not want as an attacker in this position with a weak queenside pawn structure.
From there it just kept going downhill, he was an attacker with a solid structure, and I was defending with a weak one. I really think 26. Bf4 was a move I didn't think much on because I normally would have seen that Qd4+ makes it a wasted move. But then instead of bocking with my bishop and only losing a pawn, I decide to block with my rook in hopes of attacking d6. It turned out that with me initiating my own pinned state, my mobility was locked up for the rest of the game. And from there he proceeded to finish the game as any good player would.
After reflecting on this game, I think my main mistakes are as follows:
1. I started out with a defensive opening. Generally the goal of defensive play is to limit your enemy's progress and search for a vulnerability before you attack. I attacked before my opponent revealed a vulnerability. My pawn structure was weak as a result, and that's where my lines started to fall in the middlegame.
2. After deciding to go on offense, I gave up a valuable tempo for no reason. If i was going to attack, I should have been doing that for the rest of the game. Note that changing from defense to offense to defense in the opening is completely unfocused. You either focus on attacking or defending at any given time, or else your pieces will not be positioned to do either well.
As usual any comments are greatly appreciated. Even if it's just to let me know you exist and have in fact spent some time reading my blog, at least I won't feel like I'm wasting my time writing.
Until next time...
Friday, August 27, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Feature Deck: Dark Naya
Alright as promised, here is my current Magic: The Gathering decklist, created by yours truly, for study and discussion.
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Bloodbraid Elf
3 Ranger of Eos
3 Vengevine
3 Lightning Bolt
3 Path to Exile
4 Blightning
3 Maelstrom Pulse
4 Savage Lands
4 Jungle Shrine
4 Arid Mesa
4 Verdant Catacombs
1 Evolving Wilds
3 Forest
2 Plains
2 Mountain
1 Swamp
Sideboard
3 Pithing Needle
3 Qasali Pridemage
3 Dauntless Escort
3 Thought Hemorrhage
3 Consuming Vapors
Here are the nonland cards in my deck sorted by my own special categories.
Acceleration
4 Noble Hierarch
Creatures (offense)
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Bloodbraid Elf
3 Ranger of Eos
3 Vengevine
Removal (defense)
3 Lightning Bolt
3 Path to Exile
4 Blightning
3 Maelstrom Pulse
There are two main things about my sorting that will come as odd to the average player: Noble Hierarch not being in the creature category and Blightning in the removal category. I choose to put Noble Hierarch in a special acceleration category because that's exactly what I use it for. Noble Hierarch is so weak that it is rarely used as an attacker, I use it simply to play turn 4 spells on turn 3.
Blightning in removal is also weird. I like to consider Blightning as indirect removal because while you cannot quite target specific cards, it still removes cards from your opponent's hands. In most cases blightning will render the last two threats of your opponent's hand useless, or increase your card advantage relative to the opponent's. I broke this deck into primarily offense and defense to allow for more study of these two strategic concepts as it relates to Magic.
Now for any doubters that may be out there, this is a good deck. I went 6-2 with it (minor changes each time) at the most recent Nationals Qualifier and Midwest Masters I entered and both were 200+ man tournaments. In addition I'd say both losses at both events were strongly influenced by mulligan to five hands, and not because of color issues, I for whatever reason kept drawing 1-land hands. This deck has even performed quite well against decks that use Spreading Seas to try to mess with my manabase.
The concept of this deck came from a few choices. The first one being that I strongly prefer creatures. If you dropped me into a random format several years into the future my first question would be "what are the best creatures in the format?" In this case, my mind floated to Naya, with the ability to use both Bloodbraid Elf and Ranger of Eos for superior card advantage. And because cascading into a 6/6 is just pure awesome. "Sure I was losing until my Bloodbraid Elf Cascaded into a 6/6 Knight of the Reliquary and put a threat of 9 points of damage on the board, in one card." The second choice of mine is that I don't like running pure creature builds. Decks that have the ability to interact with the opponent and foil their plans can be said to be more versatile than pure creature aggro decks. So I asked myself the question "what deck has the best removal?" With Maelstrom Pulse, Blightning, Terminate, and Lightning Bolt, Jund was obviously the answer to that. So I could run Jund splashing white or Naya splashing black. In the end I chose Naya+black because Naya had more potential for both acceleration and color fixing with Noble Hierarch and Knight of the Reliquary and because of my playstyle.
If you read my previous blog entries you'd see that I tried to quantify my playstyle as a ratio of offense to defense and came up with 70:30. If you agree that creatures are the main form of offense in a deck and removal is defense, then Naya splashing black would fit my playstyle perfectly. Take note of the number of creatures:removal. Out of 35 Cards we have 22 creatures (Noble Hierarch is included for the sake of Vengevine) and 13 removal spells. 22/35 is roughly 63%, not quite 70% but for the sake of adjustments to the general format, it's close enough. Considering that one Bloodbraid Elf could very well be 2 creatures and one Ranger of Eos is effectively 3 creatures, I think that realistically it is very close to 70% in use. My removal is 37%. In my opinion 70% offense and 30% defense is enough offense to stay on an assault strategy while having just enough defense to reliably foil your opponent's plans of winning. I am simply noting that this is the playstyle I have found the most success with in every game I play and my best deck to date also follows this playstyle closely.
I broke this ratio once and it lead to much worse results. I went to PTQ Amsterdam with a list of 50% creatures and 50% removal. I ended that tournament 4-4. I am not necessarily saying this is the definite hands-down reason, but I believe it was a very strong factor concerning my drop in success. Henceforth I returned to the roughly 70:30 style and I am once again loving my success. I am doing excellent in FNMs (usually 40 man tournaments) and against a nearly every type of deck. I also added one land (it was formerly 24 land), which greatly reduced the number of unfavorable 1 and 2 land opening hands.
Aside from my own special theories on why my deck wins, here are more commonly explored reasons as to why it is doing so well.
1. This deck is full of card advantage; with 4 Bloodbraid Elf, 3 Ranger of Eos, 3 Vengevine, 4 Blightning, and 3 Maelstrom Pulse (for a total of 13 possible), the opportunities for me to gain card advantage over my opponent just throw themselves at me.
2. This deck sports some of the most efficient creatures in the format.
3. This deck also sports some of the most efficient removal in the format.
Efficient spells offer more flexibility. Any time I play 2 spells in one turn cycle and my opponent plays only one spell, I have gained one unit of initiative. Example: On an empty board I play a Knight of the Reliquary and pass my turn. My opponent plays a Putrid Leech and passes his turn, at which point I play Path to Exile. Because I played two spells to his one I have just put him behind one full turn in terms of on-the-board development. In the situation that my opponent went first I would have eliminated his initiative advantage and equalized on the board.
Here are my thoughts about some of my common matchups:
Jund
I really like this matchup. We are basically the same concept except Jund is a bit slower and has slightly more powerful late-game spells like Siege-Gang Commander and Broodmate Dragon. While I do get unlucky sometimes I usually win this one by having more card advantage than my opponent. My opponent's Blightning can be offset by the addition of 2 creatures to my hand with Ranger of Eos. In contrast my Blightnings hurt a lot, as my Jund opponent has no such compensation. Sprouting Thrinax usually gets Path to Exile'd and my Vengevine just keeps coming back. I rarely have to sideboard against Jund unless they play some unusual tech, at which point I just put in Thought Hemorrhage.
UW Tapout
I usually lose the first game to Day of Judgment and Martial Coup, though with the addition of Vengevine I have been getting many 2-0 victories against them lately. Game two I side in Dauntless Escort, Pithing Needle for planeswalkers and Celestial Collonades, and maybe Qasali Pridemage if they seem heavy on enchantments or artifacts like Oblivion Ring, Spreading Seas, Everflowing Chalice, and Fieldmist Borderpost (the pridemage may seem overboard but it at least gives me more insurance against Spreading Seas, while hitting lots of other stuff too). Thought Hemorrhage also works against any annoyance or tech the other cards can't deal with.
Polymorph
I had trouble with this deck until recently. Game one I just have to try my best to either kill all of their tokens or race them to defeat. Post sideboard is Thought Hemorrhage naming Polymorph for the win, in addition to the previous tactics if I don't draw one. Consuming Vapors is also surprisingly good here not only can it devour tokens needed to cast Polymorph, it can also devour Emrakul, The Aeons Torn if it manages to hit the field.
Vampires
The first game seems strongly in my favor unless I get Mind Sludge'd, and I can even recover from that well because of Bloodbraid Elf, Ranger of Eos, and Vengevine. Post sideboard I have my Consuming Vapors in and they get wrecked. Rule of thumb: If your opponent plays a nontoken creature-based deck, Consuming Vapors wrecks them.
Naya
Their Vengevine gets Path to Exile'd and their Knight of the Reliquary gets Maelstrom Pulse'd. Post board Consuming Vapors wrecks them.
Planeswalker Control
Maelstrom Pulse helps me a lot in this matchup, as does Vengevine. This matchup is similar for me to UW Control variants; game one is about 40:60 in their favor but post board Pithing Needle and Thought Hemorrhage come in and foil all their plans.
Next-Level Bant
I honestly have not played this deck yet, though as I look at the lists this matchup looks like I have the upper hand in both game one and two. The concept of Next-Level Bant is somewhat similar to mine; good creatures and decent defensive control combined into one deck, but I have way more card advantage. Consuming Vapors may not be as good because of their creature:noncreature ratio not being so creature-heavy. But as usual Thought Hemorrhage hits a lot of things...
Time Sieve/Open The Vaults
Qasali Pridemage and Pithing Needle. I have never lost to this type of deck post sideboard.
Mono Red
Blightning, Lightning Bolt, and Path to Exile are a house against this deck. Post board throw in Consuming Vapors if some of their creature choices stay on the field. If it it just Goblin guide, Hellspark Elemental, Hell's Thunder, Ball Lightning, and a bunch of burn spells, then stick with blightning, bolt, and path. Thought Hemorrhage is a bad idea here since it is so slow.
Last notes:
Thought Hemorrhage was suggested to me recently by my local judge. Formerly in its place was Oblivion Ring. I thought that in order to remove all copies of the named card it had to be present in the opponent's hand. But this card is really like BR's Meddling Mage. The card does not have to be in the opponents hand, simply name a card you don't want to see and watch as your opponent's deck gets crippled. If the card is in the opponent's hand you get to deal damage as an extra bonus. It it not subject to removal spells like Meddling Mage, so once it resolves, its effect sticks. You seriously can't go wrong with Thought Hemorrhage in your sideboard if you have the colors to play it.
Spreading Seas alone does not destroy me but 4 Spreading Seas and 2+ Convincing Mirage does. If decks that use more Convincing Mirage become common, I can use the intuitive Prophetic Prism tech to counteract them.
Please feel free to comment, congratulate, or criticize. Any of the above leads to learning, which is what this blog is all about.
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Bloodbraid Elf
3 Ranger of Eos
3 Vengevine
3 Lightning Bolt
3 Path to Exile
4 Blightning
3 Maelstrom Pulse
4 Savage Lands
4 Jungle Shrine
4 Arid Mesa
4 Verdant Catacombs
1 Evolving Wilds
3 Forest
2 Plains
2 Mountain
1 Swamp
Sideboard
3 Pithing Needle
3 Qasali Pridemage
3 Dauntless Escort
3 Thought Hemorrhage
3 Consuming Vapors
Here are the nonland cards in my deck sorted by my own special categories.
Acceleration
4 Noble Hierarch
Creatures (offense)
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Bloodbraid Elf
3 Ranger of Eos
3 Vengevine
Removal (defense)
3 Lightning Bolt
3 Path to Exile
4 Blightning
3 Maelstrom Pulse
There are two main things about my sorting that will come as odd to the average player: Noble Hierarch not being in the creature category and Blightning in the removal category. I choose to put Noble Hierarch in a special acceleration category because that's exactly what I use it for. Noble Hierarch is so weak that it is rarely used as an attacker, I use it simply to play turn 4 spells on turn 3.
Blightning in removal is also weird. I like to consider Blightning as indirect removal because while you cannot quite target specific cards, it still removes cards from your opponent's hands. In most cases blightning will render the last two threats of your opponent's hand useless, or increase your card advantage relative to the opponent's. I broke this deck into primarily offense and defense to allow for more study of these two strategic concepts as it relates to Magic.
Now for any doubters that may be out there, this is a good deck. I went 6-2 with it (minor changes each time) at the most recent Nationals Qualifier and Midwest Masters I entered and both were 200+ man tournaments. In addition I'd say both losses at both events were strongly influenced by mulligan to five hands, and not because of color issues, I for whatever reason kept drawing 1-land hands. This deck has even performed quite well against decks that use Spreading Seas to try to mess with my manabase.
The concept of this deck came from a few choices. The first one being that I strongly prefer creatures. If you dropped me into a random format several years into the future my first question would be "what are the best creatures in the format?" In this case, my mind floated to Naya, with the ability to use both Bloodbraid Elf and Ranger of Eos for superior card advantage. And because cascading into a 6/6 is just pure awesome. "Sure I was losing until my Bloodbraid Elf Cascaded into a 6/6 Knight of the Reliquary and put a threat of 9 points of damage on the board, in one card." The second choice of mine is that I don't like running pure creature builds. Decks that have the ability to interact with the opponent and foil their plans can be said to be more versatile than pure creature aggro decks. So I asked myself the question "what deck has the best removal?" With Maelstrom Pulse, Blightning, Terminate, and Lightning Bolt, Jund was obviously the answer to that. So I could run Jund splashing white or Naya splashing black. In the end I chose Naya+black because Naya had more potential for both acceleration and color fixing with Noble Hierarch and Knight of the Reliquary and because of my playstyle.
If you read my previous blog entries you'd see that I tried to quantify my playstyle as a ratio of offense to defense and came up with 70:30. If you agree that creatures are the main form of offense in a deck and removal is defense, then Naya splashing black would fit my playstyle perfectly. Take note of the number of creatures:removal. Out of 35 Cards we have 22 creatures (Noble Hierarch is included for the sake of Vengevine) and 13 removal spells. 22/35 is roughly 63%, not quite 70% but for the sake of adjustments to the general format, it's close enough. Considering that one Bloodbraid Elf could very well be 2 creatures and one Ranger of Eos is effectively 3 creatures, I think that realistically it is very close to 70% in use. My removal is 37%. In my opinion 70% offense and 30% defense is enough offense to stay on an assault strategy while having just enough defense to reliably foil your opponent's plans of winning. I am simply noting that this is the playstyle I have found the most success with in every game I play and my best deck to date also follows this playstyle closely.
I broke this ratio once and it lead to much worse results. I went to PTQ Amsterdam with a list of 50% creatures and 50% removal. I ended that tournament 4-4. I am not necessarily saying this is the definite hands-down reason, but I believe it was a very strong factor concerning my drop in success. Henceforth I returned to the roughly 70:30 style and I am once again loving my success. I am doing excellent in FNMs (usually 40 man tournaments) and against a nearly every type of deck. I also added one land (it was formerly 24 land), which greatly reduced the number of unfavorable 1 and 2 land opening hands.
Aside from my own special theories on why my deck wins, here are more commonly explored reasons as to why it is doing so well.
1. This deck is full of card advantage; with 4 Bloodbraid Elf, 3 Ranger of Eos, 3 Vengevine, 4 Blightning, and 3 Maelstrom Pulse (for a total of 13 possible), the opportunities for me to gain card advantage over my opponent just throw themselves at me.
2. This deck sports some of the most efficient creatures in the format.
3. This deck also sports some of the most efficient removal in the format.
Efficient spells offer more flexibility. Any time I play 2 spells in one turn cycle and my opponent plays only one spell, I have gained one unit of initiative. Example: On an empty board I play a Knight of the Reliquary and pass my turn. My opponent plays a Putrid Leech and passes his turn, at which point I play Path to Exile. Because I played two spells to his one I have just put him behind one full turn in terms of on-the-board development. In the situation that my opponent went first I would have eliminated his initiative advantage and equalized on the board.
Here are my thoughts about some of my common matchups:
Jund
I really like this matchup. We are basically the same concept except Jund is a bit slower and has slightly more powerful late-game spells like Siege-Gang Commander and Broodmate Dragon. While I do get unlucky sometimes I usually win this one by having more card advantage than my opponent. My opponent's Blightning can be offset by the addition of 2 creatures to my hand with Ranger of Eos. In contrast my Blightnings hurt a lot, as my Jund opponent has no such compensation. Sprouting Thrinax usually gets Path to Exile'd and my Vengevine just keeps coming back. I rarely have to sideboard against Jund unless they play some unusual tech, at which point I just put in Thought Hemorrhage.
UW Tapout
I usually lose the first game to Day of Judgment and Martial Coup, though with the addition of Vengevine I have been getting many 2-0 victories against them lately. Game two I side in Dauntless Escort, Pithing Needle for planeswalkers and Celestial Collonades, and maybe Qasali Pridemage if they seem heavy on enchantments or artifacts like Oblivion Ring, Spreading Seas, Everflowing Chalice, and Fieldmist Borderpost (the pridemage may seem overboard but it at least gives me more insurance against Spreading Seas, while hitting lots of other stuff too). Thought Hemorrhage also works against any annoyance or tech the other cards can't deal with.
Polymorph
I had trouble with this deck until recently. Game one I just have to try my best to either kill all of their tokens or race them to defeat. Post sideboard is Thought Hemorrhage naming Polymorph for the win, in addition to the previous tactics if I don't draw one. Consuming Vapors is also surprisingly good here not only can it devour tokens needed to cast Polymorph, it can also devour Emrakul, The Aeons Torn if it manages to hit the field.
Vampires
The first game seems strongly in my favor unless I get Mind Sludge'd, and I can even recover from that well because of Bloodbraid Elf, Ranger of Eos, and Vengevine. Post sideboard I have my Consuming Vapors in and they get wrecked. Rule of thumb: If your opponent plays a nontoken creature-based deck, Consuming Vapors wrecks them.
Naya
Their Vengevine gets Path to Exile'd and their Knight of the Reliquary gets Maelstrom Pulse'd. Post board Consuming Vapors wrecks them.
Planeswalker Control
Maelstrom Pulse helps me a lot in this matchup, as does Vengevine. This matchup is similar for me to UW Control variants; game one is about 40:60 in their favor but post board Pithing Needle and Thought Hemorrhage come in and foil all their plans.
Next-Level Bant
I honestly have not played this deck yet, though as I look at the lists this matchup looks like I have the upper hand in both game one and two. The concept of Next-Level Bant is somewhat similar to mine; good creatures and decent defensive control combined into one deck, but I have way more card advantage. Consuming Vapors may not be as good because of their creature:noncreature ratio not being so creature-heavy. But as usual Thought Hemorrhage hits a lot of things...
Time Sieve/Open The Vaults
Qasali Pridemage and Pithing Needle. I have never lost to this type of deck post sideboard.
Mono Red
Blightning, Lightning Bolt, and Path to Exile are a house against this deck. Post board throw in Consuming Vapors if some of their creature choices stay on the field. If it it just Goblin guide, Hellspark Elemental, Hell's Thunder, Ball Lightning, and a bunch of burn spells, then stick with blightning, bolt, and path. Thought Hemorrhage is a bad idea here since it is so slow.
Last notes:
Thought Hemorrhage was suggested to me recently by my local judge. Formerly in its place was Oblivion Ring. I thought that in order to remove all copies of the named card it had to be present in the opponent's hand. But this card is really like BR's Meddling Mage. The card does not have to be in the opponents hand, simply name a card you don't want to see and watch as your opponent's deck gets crippled. If the card is in the opponent's hand you get to deal damage as an extra bonus. It it not subject to removal spells like Meddling Mage, so once it resolves, its effect sticks. You seriously can't go wrong with Thought Hemorrhage in your sideboard if you have the colors to play it.
Spreading Seas alone does not destroy me but 4 Spreading Seas and 2+ Convincing Mirage does. If decks that use more Convincing Mirage become common, I can use the intuitive Prophetic Prism tech to counteract them.
Please feel free to comment, congratulate, or criticize. Any of the above leads to learning, which is what this blog is all about.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Attack, Defense, and Playstyles
As noted in The Basics, Attack is focusing on winning and defense is focusing on not losing. That means that in order to win a game you must attack at some point in time. The main thing that makes an offensive player different from a defensive player is the timing of the attack.
"Militarists avoid the full and strike the empty, so they first have to recognize emptiness and fullness in others and themselves." Du Mu, The Art of War
A defensive player first waits until he sees vulnerability to attack. An offensive player is confident that he has sufficient resources to win and thus attacks first based on that confidence. Neither of these methods are necessarily wrong or right; it is mostly a matter of preference. Because you have to wait and assess the opponent to play defensively, patience is essential to victory in that style of play. So it is very common that a patient person will adopt a defensive playstyle and a less patient person will adopt an offensive playstyle.
"You see the inner conditions of opponents by means of their external formations. The inner condition of the formless is inscrutable, whereas that of those who have adopted a specific form is obvious. The inscrutable win, the obvious lose." Du Mu, The Art of War
I want to recommend that you practice both offensive and defensive play. Being skilled in defense allows you to think like a defensive player thinks. This is a very good thing for an attacker because not only do you know your plans, to a degree, you also know your opponent's plans. Having played defense before, you will be able to make convincing fakes and feints, so as to make your defensive opponent become vulnerable. Likewise I recommend defensive players to give offensive play a shot. This will help you to know what types of attacks you need to defend against as well as what types of fakes and feints to look out for. By continuously practicing both offensive and defensive play, you will be increasing your ability to be formless. Once you are formless you may find yourself switching styles in the middle of a game, playing offensively one game and defensively in another, or being a hybrid at all times.
Which brings me to the topic of the offense to defense ratio. After having played so many competitive games, I began to examine how often I was using offensive maneuvers and how often I was using defensive maneuvers. From this observation I formed a ratio to quantify my playstyle. By quantifying something that is abstract or qualitative, you gain the ability to apply mathematics and study statistics about it. After about a year of observation, I settled on a 70:30 offense to defense ratio. This number represents how prone you are to use each maneuver of combat. After I formed this ratio and began to study it, I made some very surprising conclusions.
Formlessness would be achieved when your playstyle appears to be 50:50. When I was younger I was very defensive in every game that I played. I attempted to use my memory to give my younger self a number, which I eventually settled as being around 30:70. Between then and now I gave several attempts to be formless, a perfect 50:50. Every time I tried this I failed but, being young, never tried to make a conclusion as to why. Now that I understand a lot more of the factors involved, I have come to a valid conclusion.
Games and competitions are designed by people. As such there are often design elements that prevent you from being formless. The designer(s) of the game might have strongly favored the concept of full offense vs full defense and as a result attempting a mixture of strategies will be unfocused and very difficult to win with. There is also the concept of the metagame, or a set factors that are not directly in the game but do have strong influence. The modern metagame is a noun that usually refers to the way that players play in a certain area or a certain time. In one country ping-pong players may be very defensive and in another, very aggressive. While a formless style of play may work in one metagame, it may be very difficult to work in a metagame where the average player is very focused and concentrated on one style.
So with these factors and many more in play, formlessness is to be aimed at but it it not always practical. You should first examine the game thoroughly and then decide if your normal playstyle is something that you can adopt. I have found that in most games I play, I am either 70% offensive and 30% defensive or vise versa. Those are styles of play that, in most games, are not too unfocused but also not completely predictable.
But enough of all this pure theory crap. I'm sure there's somebody out there who wants to read about stuff that specifically applies to the game he/she plays. In my next entry I'll discuss how the use of my preferred playstyle has helped me to make a formidable, but completely original Magic: The Gathering deck.
"Militarists avoid the full and strike the empty, so they first have to recognize emptiness and fullness in others and themselves." Du Mu, The Art of War
A defensive player first waits until he sees vulnerability to attack. An offensive player is confident that he has sufficient resources to win and thus attacks first based on that confidence. Neither of these methods are necessarily wrong or right; it is mostly a matter of preference. Because you have to wait and assess the opponent to play defensively, patience is essential to victory in that style of play. So it is very common that a patient person will adopt a defensive playstyle and a less patient person will adopt an offensive playstyle.
"You see the inner conditions of opponents by means of their external formations. The inner condition of the formless is inscrutable, whereas that of those who have adopted a specific form is obvious. The inscrutable win, the obvious lose." Du Mu, The Art of War
I want to recommend that you practice both offensive and defensive play. Being skilled in defense allows you to think like a defensive player thinks. This is a very good thing for an attacker because not only do you know your plans, to a degree, you also know your opponent's plans. Having played defense before, you will be able to make convincing fakes and feints, so as to make your defensive opponent become vulnerable. Likewise I recommend defensive players to give offensive play a shot. This will help you to know what types of attacks you need to defend against as well as what types of fakes and feints to look out for. By continuously practicing both offensive and defensive play, you will be increasing your ability to be formless. Once you are formless you may find yourself switching styles in the middle of a game, playing offensively one game and defensively in another, or being a hybrid at all times.
Which brings me to the topic of the offense to defense ratio. After having played so many competitive games, I began to examine how often I was using offensive maneuvers and how often I was using defensive maneuvers. From this observation I formed a ratio to quantify my playstyle. By quantifying something that is abstract or qualitative, you gain the ability to apply mathematics and study statistics about it. After about a year of observation, I settled on a 70:30 offense to defense ratio. This number represents how prone you are to use each maneuver of combat. After I formed this ratio and began to study it, I made some very surprising conclusions.
Formlessness would be achieved when your playstyle appears to be 50:50. When I was younger I was very defensive in every game that I played. I attempted to use my memory to give my younger self a number, which I eventually settled as being around 30:70. Between then and now I gave several attempts to be formless, a perfect 50:50. Every time I tried this I failed but, being young, never tried to make a conclusion as to why. Now that I understand a lot more of the factors involved, I have come to a valid conclusion.
Games and competitions are designed by people. As such there are often design elements that prevent you from being formless. The designer(s) of the game might have strongly favored the concept of full offense vs full defense and as a result attempting a mixture of strategies will be unfocused and very difficult to win with. There is also the concept of the metagame, or a set factors that are not directly in the game but do have strong influence. The modern metagame is a noun that usually refers to the way that players play in a certain area or a certain time. In one country ping-pong players may be very defensive and in another, very aggressive. While a formless style of play may work in one metagame, it may be very difficult to work in a metagame where the average player is very focused and concentrated on one style.
So with these factors and many more in play, formlessness is to be aimed at but it it not always practical. You should first examine the game thoroughly and then decide if your normal playstyle is something that you can adopt. I have found that in most games I play, I am either 70% offensive and 30% defensive or vise versa. Those are styles of play that, in most games, are not too unfocused but also not completely predictable.
But enough of all this pure theory crap. I'm sure there's somebody out there who wants to read about stuff that specifically applies to the game he/she plays. In my next entry I'll discuss how the use of my preferred playstyle has helped me to make a formidable, but completely original Magic: The Gathering deck.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Basics
Welcome to my gaming strategy blog! I'd like to start out by laying out the basics, what I consider to be the most critical parts of strategy. These are not guaranteed to be correct in every situation or game, but they are a general guide to what you should know.
1. Attack and defense are the two basic types of maneuvers. Attack is focusing on winning and defense is focusing on not losing.
2. To win and to not lose have equal value. This means attack and defense also have equal value. Successful attacking means progress towards winning and successful defending means your opponent makes no progress towards winning. Both are essential to overall victory.
3. While you are attacking, your defense is lowered and while you are defending, your attack is lowered. Imagine you have a forcefield around you that lets nothing in or out. In order to attack your opponent you must first lower that forcefield for an instant, which makes you vulnerable to be attacked. On the other hand, while you are defending with your forcefield, you will not be able to attack freely.
4. "Defense is for times of insufficiency, attack is for times of surplus." -Sun Tzu
I'd like to rephrase this for a little clarity: In times of insufficiency you should defend, in times of surplus, you should attack. I rephrased it mainly because it might have misled people into thinking that attack is only for times of surplus and likewise defense only for insufficiency. In a situation where both you and your opponent are equal (like in the beginning of the game) either option is fine. Also it is not bad to defend when you are in a time of surplus.
Defending in times of insufficiency is crucial to good strategy. The purpose of defense is to fend off attacks from your opponent until you see a vulnerability and then strike. The vulnerability is bound to show up because of the idea in #3; your opponents must make themselves more vulnerable in order to attack you.
5. "In ancient times skillful warriors first made themselves invincible, and then watched for vulnerability in their opponents." -Sun Tzu
I'd recommend following this same order, it worked for them and it surely works for me.
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skillful warriors are able to make themselves invincible, but they cannot cause opponents to be vulnerable." -Sun Tzu
This is the main reason defensive players like defense. You cannot force your opponents to attack and become vulnerable. Therefore patient players prefer defensive playstyles because they aim to out-wait and frustrate the opponent into attacking, thereby exposing vulnerabilities.
So far, so good? I tried my best to not use any game-specific examples so that anyone can understand the points I'm making. Nobody is perfect and we all have a lot to learn from someone else, so please feel free to leave comments, suggestions, start debates, anything. In my next post I plan to address attack and defense on a more broad scale and discuss my thoughts on playstyles.
1. Attack and defense are the two basic types of maneuvers. Attack is focusing on winning and defense is focusing on not losing.
2. To win and to not lose have equal value. This means attack and defense also have equal value. Successful attacking means progress towards winning and successful defending means your opponent makes no progress towards winning. Both are essential to overall victory.
3. While you are attacking, your defense is lowered and while you are defending, your attack is lowered. Imagine you have a forcefield around you that lets nothing in or out. In order to attack your opponent you must first lower that forcefield for an instant, which makes you vulnerable to be attacked. On the other hand, while you are defending with your forcefield, you will not be able to attack freely.
4. "Defense is for times of insufficiency, attack is for times of surplus." -Sun Tzu
I'd like to rephrase this for a little clarity: In times of insufficiency you should defend, in times of surplus, you should attack. I rephrased it mainly because it might have misled people into thinking that attack is only for times of surplus and likewise defense only for insufficiency. In a situation where both you and your opponent are equal (like in the beginning of the game) either option is fine. Also it is not bad to defend when you are in a time of surplus.
Defending in times of insufficiency is crucial to good strategy. The purpose of defense is to fend off attacks from your opponent until you see a vulnerability and then strike. The vulnerability is bound to show up because of the idea in #3; your opponents must make themselves more vulnerable in order to attack you.
5. "In ancient times skillful warriors first made themselves invincible, and then watched for vulnerability in their opponents." -Sun Tzu
I'd recommend following this same order, it worked for them and it surely works for me.
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skillful warriors are able to make themselves invincible, but they cannot cause opponents to be vulnerable." -Sun Tzu
This is the main reason defensive players like defense. You cannot force your opponents to attack and become vulnerable. Therefore patient players prefer defensive playstyles because they aim to out-wait and frustrate the opponent into attacking, thereby exposing vulnerabilities.
So far, so good? I tried my best to not use any game-specific examples so that anyone can understand the points I'm making. Nobody is perfect and we all have a lot to learn from someone else, so please feel free to leave comments, suggestions, start debates, anything. In my next post I plan to address attack and defense on a more broad scale and discuss my thoughts on playstyles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)