Move sequences are automatically highlighted and made clickable. If the previous move number appears earlier in the comment, the sequence continues from that move. Otherwise, it's treated as a variation from the main line. This can be error-prone with multiple sequences in one comment, so please use the Preview button to check your work before posting.
To force a sequence to be treated as a main line variation, precede it with a vertical bar
(|). The copy variation button (⧉) includes this bar automatically.
For more complex discussions, you can name a sequence by adding the name in square
brackets at the end, e.g. 15.p9 [a]. Later in the same comment, or in
any following comment, you can branch off that variation by wrapping the name in vertical
bars, like this:|a| 16.o13
The variation name must start with
a letter, contain only letters, numbers, and dashes (-), and is case-sensitive.
Comments use UTF-8 encoding, so you can include emojis 😉, non-English characters, and other Unicode symbols.
You can also use HTML entities like — for an em-dash (—) or → for a right arrow (→).
For safety reasons, most HTML tags are stripped, except:
<b>, <i>, <u> — bold, italic, underline<em>, <strong> — emphasis, strong text<s>, <strike> — <sup>, <sub> — superscript, subscript<blockquote> — indented quotes
<code> — fixed-width font<pre> — multi-line preformatted text
<br> — forces a line break
-0.470 |2.g4 3.f11 4.f6 5.f7 6.g8 7.g9 8.c4 9.c3 10.d2 11.b5 12.b3 13.h7 14.k4 15.m5
-0.522 |4.m17 5.h16 6.m8 7.q12 8.h19 9.g18 10.g21
-0.507 |6.r20 7.o19 8.l8 9.p9 10.p6 11.t7 12.q12 13.u13
-0.533 |8.l8 9.p9 10.p6 11.t7 12.q12 13.r10 14.o4 15.s5
-0.553 |10.h21 11.p17 12.m21 13.p21 14.g8 15.p9 16.p14 17.p13 18.p6 19.e8
-0.601 |12.h13 13.d14 14.c10 15.b9 16.e11 17.f11 18.p19 19.f15 20.g12
-0.638 |14.l4 15.h6 16.j20 17.m20 18.k18 19.r12 20.p10 21.p11
-0.657 |16.d3 17.i4 18.j5 19.f5 20.e10 21.h10 22.g11 23.f9 24.c11
-0.603 |18.e10 19.h10 20.g11 21.f9 22.c11 23.j11 24.p19 25.l15 26.k18 27.k19 28.l20
-0.626 |20.f17 21.h16 22.j20 23.m20 24.l19 25.r12 26.p14 27.q14
-0.682 |22.j20 23.m20 24.k18 25.r12 26.m23 27.n22 28.o22 29.l23
-0.683 |24.l19 25.o13 26.m21 27.n22 28.p16 29.p17 30.k10 31.k13 32.j12 33.p7
-0.685 |26.m21 27.n22 28.q6 29.k13 30.q14 31.q13 32.p16 33.p17
-0.682 |28.o21 29.m24 30.q6 31.k13 32.c11 33.h10 34.q14
-0.721 |30.p16 31.p17 32.q6 33.k13 34.i11 35.e12 36.q14
-0.742 |32.q10 33.q9 34.q4 35.k13 36.p12 37.o15
-0.781 |34.g9 35.q9 36.p12 37.r11 38.q6 39.q5 40.p4 41.p3 42.s7
-0.838 |36.j7 37.q9 38.p12 39.r11 40.r13 41.q14
-0.903 |38.h9 39.h10 40.o14 41.r12 42.o11 43.o13
I am not sure what we can learn from TwixtBot about opening moves. One thing it often does is tactical moves right from the start, which has traditionally been considered a rookie mistake. However, if its position is strengthened in the battle, maybe it is a valid approach. You just have to be insanely good at tactical moves to feel confident starting that way.
I think there is an opportunity to develop an opening move AI competition. The task is to program an AI that handles Twixt opening moves, but can hand the game over to TwixtBot at any time. The default opponent is a null AI that just hands it over to TwixtBot right away. Any AI that can beat the null AI more than 50% of the time in a statistically significant number of games will have proven TwixtBot's AI to be deficient in opening move theory.