Stratego videos and their usefulness
Stratego videos
Technology 2018
There is no denying that the further technical developments go, the more these developments become standards in our live. 15 years ago, one could not possibly have imagined we're able to carry a small device called "smartphone" with us which, compared to devices back then, has a huge processing power. Powerful devices have been incorporated into our lives for the better or worse.
With all these new technologies and such, more options arise. A site like YouTube was founded in february, 2005. Who could possibly have imagined the amount of content available nowadays? definitely not me. Look how easy it has become to make a video using software editing tools which are sufficient so that most computer novices too can produce a decent video and put it online.
Video / image sharing has become such a daily business for most. Been somewhere? don't forget to put videos online on Facebook, Instagram and whatever "social" media one uses. I'll admit to being slightly guilty of this too; when having dinner at a restaurant (often after a tournament) a few friends will receive a picture of my ice cream dessert😊😊.
My first encounter with Stratego videos
So, with all these possibilities, even in the world of Stratego, videos have found their way. The first time I got to know about videos being made during games at Stratego.com is when I had to face maxroelofs in a tournament game. Max asked if I would be ok with him uploading the game to which I gave a positive response. I'm quite sure many players enjoyed watching this and Max's other videos.
Making and publishing videos is great, in a way, it is a digital advertisement for the game, site and community. The WCO for example encourages people to record and share their games, but only with permission and this is important.
Free choice and interest
No one is compelled, in any way, to teach anything to anyone regarding the game. Many players do not want to have their games featured on the internet and I feel that is their right. Imagine working on a specific setup for 2 weeks only to have the key features published by a video, uploaded by someone else. Great, isn't it? that's several hours of development and testing down the drain.
I personally hardly ever watch Stratego videos, I simply do not enjoy it. I get more joy out of watching other games like Dota2, Starcraft, or even games I have not played myself in ages like Age of empires, Command & Conquer: Red alert and so on. Even Chess, I like to watch over Stratego. Every move counts, every move can change the dynamic of the position, I feel this is not the case with Stratego. There are a few decisive moves every game and that'll be it.
Video with commentary
Stratego videos for learning purposes, I am not sure of. The few videos I have watched, I typically do not find these very instructive. There are no comments, no annotations, just game play. If players are not explaining why they put a certain piece at a certain position or why they were willing to take a risk, or even why not, you are just watching plain game play.
Everyone has probably run into the "typical 50% ratio marshal blitzer" some time :). Imagine watching this person play. (S)He will construct the setup and use the following as a core:
Upon constructing the setup, the player explains that (s)he wants to score a piece or two, three using the marshal + colonel attack on the left side and then play on from whatever happens. The player explains the right side of the board will be full of lower pieces while the center is well protected, using the general + spy as a lock to the treasure room.
When the player is done, we see the final setup There is very little to learn from this. The majors on C2, D2, E2 are put there without a specific plan other than "don't lose them". Of course, this is on first sight. Perhaps the player, when making commentary, may actually have different purpose. The pieces on the right are put with the purpose of "delaying". You could probably switch nearly all of the "not core" pieces around and still come out with a decent, playable setup. Again, in terms of learning, there is very little depth. However, for absolute new players, even a video featuring a setup and play-style like this can be interesting. It is a great strategy that always works 50% of the time it seems😉.
Things are too situational in Stratego
When you put two top players against each other, even if both were to record and share their side of the board, it would not be very instructive for new players. There is a certain level that needs to be met first in order to understand and appreciate the moves being made by these two top players. Even when things are being explained, the new player will hardly ever run into a similar situation against players of his/her own level. The games of this player rely heavily on a setup match. If the opponent chooses the wrong side, the opponent will lose the game very quickly, if not, the aggressor has an advantage, and most likely a decisive one at this level.
So, how about watching a top player get blitzed by someone say +- 500 ELO below? Again, 50% of the times these games will end in 50 moves. The other half will be more interesting. Yes, the new player can learn how the top player prepares for what is to come, the new player can watch how the top player moves his pieces around the board, how he outplays and outbluffs his opponent. Guess what? the opponent has to pull the trigger still most of the time, that means that the aggressor, the marshal blitzer, will still have to be tricked / forced into making a poor, game losing move, often. While the top player may be able to manipulate the aggressor a bit, it still comes down to a 50'50 on whether the aggressor makes the right choice or not. Sometimes, even when the wrong choice is made, the damage done has been so severe, that it does not matter anyway. So, to summarise, the new player would be watching the top player win because this specific opponent managed to lose despite his/her advantage. Can there be lessons learnt? sure, but how many? next game will have slightly different details and what may have worked in a previous game, may not work again.
Chess & importance of moves
When arguments are made like "Chess players don't hide anything", that may be, partly, correct, but in chess you don't get to decide where you initially put your pieces. The initial position is decided from the start and right away, interesting choices are there to be made.
For testing purposes, I made a few moves against a chess AI. (I'm white)
The moment I move my pawn to D4, I, based on experience, know the opponent will play pawn to D5 or Knight to F6 as most likely moves. Already I am to take a decision on how the game will develop, do I try to grab the center by playing pawn to E4, too, or would I rather play what I prefer? which would be pawn to C4.
The expected happens. Here already is something interesting, out of habit, I would probably play, as white, knight to C3. I put the situation into two engines, one being Stockfish 9 which recommends playing knight to F3. A new engine, Leela chess, recommends playing (my second preference) bishop to G5 to pin the knight. (probably the better move)
So, compare this to Stratego? In the chess example, I played two moves, and already, I had many choices to make. All which have been explored many times thoroughly already. There is very little new for a (new) player to learn from me, the same opening has been played millions of times already. By playing this, I wouldn't be revealing anything new or something that can be countered by a specific move.
Meta gaming
In my chess example, from the first move on as white, I had several solid, meaningful, options that determine the cause of the game (1. C4 / D4 / E4 / G3, kF3). Stratego? not so much, does it really make any difference whether I move a scout, sergeant, or captain first? and on which side? it makes for very little difference in the grand scheme of things. However, it is counter-able. When it becomes known player X always moves a lieutenant on his first turn, people will find out and start putting captains on the front just to score that one free lieutenant. Eventually the player gets tired of front row captains and decides to put majors on the front. Is this what we want Stratego to become? people watching each others videos, just to learn how to play against them? I feel most videos accomplish exactly this. People are not learning how to play the game, they are learning how to play the game against whoever was put on the recording. If I were to play against someone who played 10 games but would know the starting position of all 40 pieces, I do not think I would win that game.
Yes, you can vary, make changes, make new setups etc. Players will typically have some preferences. While watching top players may be instructive and a learning experience, do we want to turn this game into statistical analysis where players will note "Player X puts his marshal on the right side of the board 56% of the time" and play the game based on that? This doesn't improve players, at all, it just reduces the game to luck. Something we don't need.
When looking to analyse Stratego, I think this becomes very complex too. Some moves may not be worth the risk, but do work out. Was this a bad move? maybe, maybe the player saw something that others did not see. Next game it may have completely backfired. Things in Stratego are to be taken relative. Taking out that major protected by three pieces using the general may work, but it may also cost you the game just as easily. Not so much.
One thing that videos could definitely be helpful for, would be to improve positional play based on analysis. (many) pieces are known, one objectively bad move can cost you the game. Too many other things in Stratego are subjective. Scouting that one piece at A7 using your last scout? it may just be an awful move, finding a sergeant, next time you are more fortunate and find a general. Who is right? the one who says this was a great move, or the one that deems this move a bad move, but it just worked out this instance?
Poker
Another, last argument I'll discuss, is poker players showing their hole cards. Yes, great. I don't really watch poker, but I can see why it would be more interesting (atleast for me) to watch that, over a game of Stratego: Drama and psychological warfare. A player making a bad move and winning 20k as a result of a 5% chance, anyone watching that will have some sort of emotion. One may think "So lucky!" an other may think "Good, I dislike player X, his opponent" while a third observant may think to him/her self "Wow, I feel for that player". Back to Stratego: You get to decide where you put your 40 pieces, in something like poker, you don't get to decide your starting hand. Preferences don't matter so much. Ask anyone whether they would rather be dealt two aces or a 3 and a 9, different suit, and the answer will be pretty clear. Ask a Stratego player his favorite location for a marshal, you will get much different answers. Keep the question to a specific side, it will roughly be 50'50.
Imagine the following in poker: two players are left, one has A A, the other has a 5 and a 6, same suit (let's say diamonds). Community cards are dealt and it all turns out into the following situation:
Imagine three players folded, they probably had lower cards, somewhat decreasing the odds for the 5-6 player. Still, the player with AA would definitely not like this situation at all, being dealt the best starting hand and still finding yourself in a pickle, that can not be good. The 5-6 player throws in all his chips. What now? can you lay down your starting hand of AA? big decisions to be made. Compare this to Stratego, do I hit with this sergeant on this unknown piece at move 6? such little impact. Now this is only about the excitement, but what does the poker player really say about his/her own play style? not so much, he could have a decent hand himself, he could have 4-3 as starting hand even, making it near hopeless for the AA player. But of course, there is also the possibility the player who just put all of his chips/money on the stake actually has QQ or a very bad hand of K-8. It all comes down to the psychology of that moment. Not much carries on to next games, unlike with Stratego.
Purpose
Last but not least on the usefulness of analysis of Stratego videos: Players make mistake, everyone does. Ever so often do I make a move only to think "Hmm, move X would definitely have been better". Is it worth it point this out? most players are aware of the fact they made a poor or sub-optimal move. Hindsight is easy, players typically make the best move available to them given the time they are taking to think. In end game scenario's, you can look at a certain position for 15 minutes and come up with a better move. Guess what? clock time has run out and you lost the game. If you want to get better at the game, play it. No champion got their title(s) just by theorycrafting.
“The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried.” - Stephen McCranie. In other words: Video may be useful for learning some, but ultimately, being spoon fed all sorts of info you can not apply properly is not only useless, but also unfun. The exploring of this extremely difficult game to master, is way more rewarding and fun than taking short routes. I do believe players can learn from each other, but more on a one-to-one basis.
Concluding
There are many things to be explored in this game, I think those ultimately will be explored by playing. There are too many variables to say what is and what is not a good play, it is what makes the game fascinating and interesting, but also very difficult to learn. Videos can be useful as long as they, with commentary, contain explanation about general principles. The actual game would just serve as example.
Technology 2018
There is no denying that the further technical developments go, the more these developments become standards in our live. 15 years ago, one could not possibly have imagined we're able to carry a small device called "smartphone" with us which, compared to devices back then, has a huge processing power. Powerful devices have been incorporated into our lives for the better or worse.
With all these new technologies and such, more options arise. A site like YouTube was founded in february, 2005. Who could possibly have imagined the amount of content available nowadays? definitely not me. Look how easy it has become to make a video using software editing tools which are sufficient so that most computer novices too can produce a decent video and put it online.
Video / image sharing has become such a daily business for most. Been somewhere? don't forget to put videos online on Facebook, Instagram and whatever "social" media one uses. I'll admit to being slightly guilty of this too; when having dinner at a restaurant (often after a tournament) a few friends will receive a picture of my ice cream dessert😊😊.
My first encounter with Stratego videos
So, with all these possibilities, even in the world of Stratego, videos have found their way. The first time I got to know about videos being made during games at Stratego.com is when I had to face maxroelofs in a tournament game. Max asked if I would be ok with him uploading the game to which I gave a positive response. I'm quite sure many players enjoyed watching this and Max's other videos.
Making and publishing videos is great, in a way, it is a digital advertisement for the game, site and community. The WCO for example encourages people to record and share their games, but only with permission and this is important.
Free choice and interest
No one is compelled, in any way, to teach anything to anyone regarding the game. Many players do not want to have their games featured on the internet and I feel that is their right. Imagine working on a specific setup for 2 weeks only to have the key features published by a video, uploaded by someone else. Great, isn't it? that's several hours of development and testing down the drain.
I personally hardly ever watch Stratego videos, I simply do not enjoy it. I get more joy out of watching other games like Dota2, Starcraft, or even games I have not played myself in ages like Age of empires, Command & Conquer: Red alert and so on. Even Chess, I like to watch over Stratego. Every move counts, every move can change the dynamic of the position, I feel this is not the case with Stratego. There are a few decisive moves every game and that'll be it.
Video with commentary
Stratego videos for learning purposes, I am not sure of. The few videos I have watched, I typically do not find these very instructive. There are no comments, no annotations, just game play. If players are not explaining why they put a certain piece at a certain position or why they were willing to take a risk, or even why not, you are just watching plain game play.
Everyone has probably run into the "typical 50% ratio marshal blitzer" some time :). Imagine watching this person play. (S)He will construct the setup and use the following as a core:
 |
| Potential blitzer core setup |
Upon constructing the setup, the player explains that (s)he wants to score a piece or two, three using the marshal + colonel attack on the left side and then play on from whatever happens. The player explains the right side of the board will be full of lower pieces while the center is well protected, using the general + spy as a lock to the treasure room.
 |
| Potential blitzer final setup |
When the player is done, we see the final setup There is very little to learn from this. The majors on C2, D2, E2 are put there without a specific plan other than "don't lose them". Of course, this is on first sight. Perhaps the player, when making commentary, may actually have different purpose. The pieces on the right are put with the purpose of "delaying". You could probably switch nearly all of the "not core" pieces around and still come out with a decent, playable setup. Again, in terms of learning, there is very little depth. However, for absolute new players, even a video featuring a setup and play-style like this can be interesting. It is a great strategy that always works 50% of the time it seems😉.
Things are too situational in Stratego
When you put two top players against each other, even if both were to record and share their side of the board, it would not be very instructive for new players. There is a certain level that needs to be met first in order to understand and appreciate the moves being made by these two top players. Even when things are being explained, the new player will hardly ever run into a similar situation against players of his/her own level. The games of this player rely heavily on a setup match. If the opponent chooses the wrong side, the opponent will lose the game very quickly, if not, the aggressor has an advantage, and most likely a decisive one at this level.
So, how about watching a top player get blitzed by someone say +- 500 ELO below? Again, 50% of the times these games will end in 50 moves. The other half will be more interesting. Yes, the new player can learn how the top player prepares for what is to come, the new player can watch how the top player moves his pieces around the board, how he outplays and outbluffs his opponent. Guess what? the opponent has to pull the trigger still most of the time, that means that the aggressor, the marshal blitzer, will still have to be tricked / forced into making a poor, game losing move, often. While the top player may be able to manipulate the aggressor a bit, it still comes down to a 50'50 on whether the aggressor makes the right choice or not. Sometimes, even when the wrong choice is made, the damage done has been so severe, that it does not matter anyway. So, to summarise, the new player would be watching the top player win because this specific opponent managed to lose despite his/her advantage. Can there be lessons learnt? sure, but how many? next game will have slightly different details and what may have worked in a previous game, may not work again.
Chess & importance of moves
When arguments are made like "Chess players don't hide anything", that may be, partly, correct, but in chess you don't get to decide where you initially put your pieces. The initial position is decided from the start and right away, interesting choices are there to be made.
For testing purposes, I made a few moves against a chess AI. (I'm white)
 |
| 1. D4 followed by Kf6 |
The moment I move my pawn to D4, I, based on experience, know the opponent will play pawn to D5 or Knight to F6 as most likely moves. Already I am to take a decision on how the game will develop, do I try to grab the center by playing pawn to E4, too, or would I rather play what I prefer? which would be pawn to C4.
 |
| 2. C4. E6 |
The expected happens. Here already is something interesting, out of habit, I would probably play, as white, knight to C3. I put the situation into two engines, one being Stockfish 9 which recommends playing knight to F3. A new engine, Leela chess, recommends playing (my second preference) bishop to G5 to pin the knight. (probably the better move)
So, compare this to Stratego? In the chess example, I played two moves, and already, I had many choices to make. All which have been explored many times thoroughly already. There is very little new for a (new) player to learn from me, the same opening has been played millions of times already. By playing this, I wouldn't be revealing anything new or something that can be countered by a specific move.
 |
| A few moves into a Stratego game: just not interesting. |
Meta gaming
In my chess example, from the first move on as white, I had several solid, meaningful, options that determine the cause of the game (1. C4 / D4 / E4 / G3, kF3). Stratego? not so much, does it really make any difference whether I move a scout, sergeant, or captain first? and on which side? it makes for very little difference in the grand scheme of things. However, it is counter-able. When it becomes known player X always moves a lieutenant on his first turn, people will find out and start putting captains on the front just to score that one free lieutenant. Eventually the player gets tired of front row captains and decides to put majors on the front. Is this what we want Stratego to become? people watching each others videos, just to learn how to play against them? I feel most videos accomplish exactly this. People are not learning how to play the game, they are learning how to play the game against whoever was put on the recording. If I were to play against someone who played 10 games but would know the starting position of all 40 pieces, I do not think I would win that game.
Yes, you can vary, make changes, make new setups etc. Players will typically have some preferences. While watching top players may be instructive and a learning experience, do we want to turn this game into statistical analysis where players will note "Player X puts his marshal on the right side of the board 56% of the time" and play the game based on that? This doesn't improve players, at all, it just reduces the game to luck. Something we don't need.
When looking to analyse Stratego, I think this becomes very complex too. Some moves may not be worth the risk, but do work out. Was this a bad move? maybe, maybe the player saw something that others did not see. Next game it may have completely backfired. Things in Stratego are to be taken relative. Taking out that major protected by three pieces using the general may work, but it may also cost you the game just as easily. Not so much.
One thing that videos could definitely be helpful for, would be to improve positional play based on analysis. (many) pieces are known, one objectively bad move can cost you the game. Too many other things in Stratego are subjective. Scouting that one piece at A7 using your last scout? it may just be an awful move, finding a sergeant, next time you are more fortunate and find a general. Who is right? the one who says this was a great move, or the one that deems this move a bad move, but it just worked out this instance?
Poker
Another, last argument I'll discuss, is poker players showing their hole cards. Yes, great. I don't really watch poker, but I can see why it would be more interesting (atleast for me) to watch that, over a game of Stratego: Drama and psychological warfare. A player making a bad move and winning 20k as a result of a 5% chance, anyone watching that will have some sort of emotion. One may think "So lucky!" an other may think "Good, I dislike player X, his opponent" while a third observant may think to him/her self "Wow, I feel for that player". Back to Stratego: You get to decide where you put your 40 pieces, in something like poker, you don't get to decide your starting hand. Preferences don't matter so much. Ask anyone whether they would rather be dealt two aces or a 3 and a 9, different suit, and the answer will be pretty clear. Ask a Stratego player his favorite location for a marshal, you will get much different answers. Keep the question to a specific side, it will roughly be 50'50.
Imagine the following in poker: two players are left, one has A A, the other has a 5 and a 6, same suit (let's say diamonds). Community cards are dealt and it all turns out into the following situation:
 |
| Potential disaster |
Imagine three players folded, they probably had lower cards, somewhat decreasing the odds for the 5-6 player. Still, the player with AA would definitely not like this situation at all, being dealt the best starting hand and still finding yourself in a pickle, that can not be good. The 5-6 player throws in all his chips. What now? can you lay down your starting hand of AA? big decisions to be made. Compare this to Stratego, do I hit with this sergeant on this unknown piece at move 6? such little impact. Now this is only about the excitement, but what does the poker player really say about his/her own play style? not so much, he could have a decent hand himself, he could have 4-3 as starting hand even, making it near hopeless for the AA player. But of course, there is also the possibility the player who just put all of his chips/money on the stake actually has QQ or a very bad hand of K-8. It all comes down to the psychology of that moment. Not much carries on to next games, unlike with Stratego.
Purpose
Last but not least on the usefulness of analysis of Stratego videos: Players make mistake, everyone does. Ever so often do I make a move only to think "Hmm, move X would definitely have been better". Is it worth it point this out? most players are aware of the fact they made a poor or sub-optimal move. Hindsight is easy, players typically make the best move available to them given the time they are taking to think. In end game scenario's, you can look at a certain position for 15 minutes and come up with a better move. Guess what? clock time has run out and you lost the game. If you want to get better at the game, play it. No champion got their title(s) just by theorycrafting.
“The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried.” - Stephen McCranie. In other words: Video may be useful for learning some, but ultimately, being spoon fed all sorts of info you can not apply properly is not only useless, but also unfun. The exploring of this extremely difficult game to master, is way more rewarding and fun than taking short routes. I do believe players can learn from each other, but more on a one-to-one basis.
Concluding
There are many things to be explored in this game, I think those ultimately will be explored by playing. There are too many variables to say what is and what is not a good play, it is what makes the game fascinating and interesting, but also very difficult to learn. Videos can be useful as long as they, with commentary, contain explanation about general principles. The actual game would just serve as example.
Comments
Post a Comment