Question about a quick loss

One thing that has been throwing me off in playing Havannah is how quickly you can lose. Take game #1451111 Of course 15 is terrible, but already by 11, I feel as if I'm struggling, and have no idea how to approach the game.

But early on, I often find moves incredibly opaque, until all of a sudden, I see that I'm losing, sometimes irreparably. How do you handle the early going? Do you count constantly, or are there heuristics you use?

In a nutshell, and for what it's worth: I count. It's a forkrace with rings for tempo threats and bridges as, well I wouldn't say 'jokers', but they spice up the main strategy with additional corner tactics.

You got the 'short' route, three subsequent sides, or the 'long' one, two sides and an escape/attack across the board.

To force an opponent into the long route, you need to have it flanked by two short ones, one on either side, hence the short route loses tempo by division if the long one threathens to bend to either side.

Main tempo means of the long route are ring threaats in the center. Counting isn't as easy as it sounds when it must be done in a context of tactical threats that change tempo conditions.

Here's Mirko Rahn's comment at move 78 in a game that illustrates the above strategic summary.

This entirely makes sense, and I can think of many games where that was the dynamic, even though I didn't think of it as such. In this game, that means I should have played to block him from the short route at 11, instead of futilely connecting to the center, right? Or was the game bad before that point?

My one confusion: I do not see Mirko's comment there. Am I missing something?

alas, only the two players involved can see the comments made in-game :) mr. freeling will surely paste it for you.

I see his comment right above the board, but maybe there's a browser problem, so here it is:

"By the way, you successfully adopted the outside pattern from the small to the bigger board. Now, one cannot by sure any longer that the inner frame will be faster after all. For me, Havannah is still widely unexplored. Thanks for the game and also for this particular one :)"

In your game I'd have played L7 maybe. The short route along the upper right would still be 12, but so would white because he cannot immediately connect, and even then he needs 'about the same'.

That's why I lose against real players: I'm often satisfied with 'about the same' ;-)

@stay

Thanks, I never even realized that. Shows how many games by others I study :)

@
hyperpape
You can't play for a draw in Havannah, hence a good defensive strategy (MartinR50 excells at that) will automatically turn into an attack at some point (or the qualification 'good' would need reconsidering). That's an important fact to keep in mind.

I think an important aspect in Havannah (compared to hex) is that you don't automatically win by defending (not meaning to correct christian, it depends on the word 'good'). At some point your opponent might get some connected thing, while your pieces are all over the place.

In hex, you really automatically win by preventing the opponent from winning. In hex, you can also have those situations where both players are winning (cannot be stopped), and then it depends on the speed. This is something unfamiliar to hex players.

Yes, quite so. Havannah is basically a race game. Having a solid connection while your opponent wins is somewhat unsettling for Hex players ;-)

On the other hand, tactics are deep in Hex, and strategy and tactics are less distinguishable than in Havannah, but in Havannah they have more variety.

Lastly, Hex is quintessential (leaving in the middle whether Y is 'more' quintessential) while Havannah's object is an arbitrary case of sheer luck :) .

sorry, I meant in HAVANNAH, you can also have those situations where both players are winning (cannot be stopped), and then it depends on the speed. This is something unfamiliar to hex players.