Arimaa

Two-player abstract strategy board game

Not to be confused with ARIMA.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Arimaa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

|

Arimaa

An Arimaa elephant

Designers| Omar Syed and Aamir Syed
Publishers| Z-Man Games
Years active| 2002 – present
Genres| Board game
Abstract strategy game
Players| 2
Setup time| < 1 minute
Playing time| 15 minutes – 2 hours
Chance| None
Skills| Strategy, tactics
Website| http://www.arimaa.com

Arimaa /əˈriːmə/ ⓘ (ə-REE-mə) is a two-player strategy board game that was designed to be playable with a standard chess set and difficult for computers while still being easy to learn and fun to play for humans. It was invented between 1997 and 2002 by Omar Syed,[1][2][3] an Indian-American computer engineer trained in artificial intelligence. Syed was inspired by Garry Kasparov's defeat at the hands of the chess computer Deep Blue to design a new game which could be played with a standard chess set, would be difficult for computers to play well, but would have rules simple enough for his then four-year-old son Aamir to understand.[4] ("Arimaa" is "Aamir" spelled backwards plus an initial "a".)

Beginning in 2004, the Arimaa community held three annual tournaments: a World Championship (humans only), a Computer Championship (computers only), and the Arimaa Challenge (human vs. computer). After eleven years of human dominance, the 2015 challenge was won decisively by the computer (Sharp by David Wu).[5]

Arimaa has won several awards including GAMES Magazine 2011 Best Abstract Strategy Game,[6] Creative Child Magazine 2010 Strategy Game of the Year,[7] and the 2010 Parents' Choice Approved Award.[8] It has also been the subject of several research papers.

## Rules

[edit]

Arimaa is played on an 8×8 board with four trap squares. There are six kinds of pieces, ranging from elephant (strongest) to rabbit (weakest). Stronger pieces can push or pull weaker pieces, and stronger pieces freeze weaker pieces. Pieces can be captured by dislodging them onto a trap square when they have no orthogonally adjacent friendly pieces.

The two players, Gold and Silver, each control sixteen pieces. These are, in order from strongest to weakest: one elephant (), one camel (), two horses (), two dogs (), two cats (), and eight rabbits (). These may be represented by the king, queen, rooks, bishops, knights, and pawns respectively when one plays using a chess set.[9]

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
Diagram 1
The players begin by setting up their pieces however they choose on their home rows.

### Objective

[edit]

The main object of the game is to move a rabbit of one's own color onto the home rank of the opponent, which is known as a goal. Thus Gold wins by moving a gold rabbit to the eighth rank, and Silver wins by moving a silver rabbit to the first rank. However, because it is difficult to usher a rabbit to the goal line while the board is full of pieces, an intermediate objective is to capture opposing pieces by pushing them into the trap squares.

The game can also be won by capturing all of the opponent's rabbits (elimination) or by depriving the opponent of legal moves (immobilization). Compared to goal, these are uncommon.

### Setup

[edit]

The game begins with an empty board. Gold places the sixteen gold pieces in any configuration on the first and second ranks. Silver then places the sixteen silver pieces in any configuration on the seventh and eighth ranks. Diagram 1 shows one possible initial placement.

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
Diagram 2
In the diagrammed position, if it were Gold's turn to move, Gold could win in three steps: the dog on a6 can push the rabbit on a7 to a8, thereby unfreezing the rabbit on b7, which can step to b8 for the victory.

### Movement

[edit]

After the pieces are placed on the board, the players alternate turns, starting with Gold. A turn consists of making one to four steps. With each step a piece may move into an unoccupied square one space left, right, forward, or backward, except that rabbits may not step backward. The steps of a turn may be made by a single piece or distributed among several pieces in any order.

A turn must make a net change to the position. Thus one cannot, for example, take one step forward and one step back with the same piece, effectively passing the turn and evading zugzwang. Furthermore, one's turn may not create the same position with the same player to move as has been created twice before. This rule is similar to the situational super ko rule in the game of Go, which prevents endless loops, and is in contrast to chess where endless loops are considered draws. The prohibitions on passing and repetition make Arimaa a drawless game.

#### Pushing and pulling

[edit]

The second diagram, from the same game as the initial position above,[10] helps illustrate the remaining rules of movement.

A player may use two consecutive steps of a turn to dislodge an opposing piece with a stronger friendly piece which is adjacent in one of the four cardinal directions. For example, a player's dog may dislodge an opposing rabbit or cat, but not a dog, horse, camel, or elephant. The stronger piece may pull or push the adjacent weaker piece. When pulling, the stronger piece steps into an empty square, and the square it came from is occupied by the weaker piece. The silver elephant on d5 could step to d4 (or c5 or e5) and pull the gold horse from d6 to d5. When pushing, the weaker piece is moved to an adjacent empty square, and the square it came from is occupied by the stronger piece. The gold elephant on d3 could push the silver rabbit on d2 to e2 and then occupy d2. Note that the rabbit on d2 can't be pushed to d1, c2, or d3, because those squares are not empty.

Friendly pieces may not be dislodged. Also, a piece may not push and pull simultaneously. For example, the gold elephant on d3 could not simultaneously push the silver rabbit on d2 to e2 and pull the silver rabbit from c3 to d3. An elephant can never be dislodged, since there is nothing stronger.

#### Freezing

[edit]

A piece which is adjacent in any cardinal direction to a stronger opposing piece is frozen, unless it is also adjacent to a friendly piece. Frozen pieces may not be moved by the owner, but may be dislodged by the opponent. A frozen piece can freeze another still weaker piece. The silver rabbit on a7 is frozen, but the one on d2 is able to move because it is adjacent to a silver piece. Similarly the gold rabbit on b7 is frozen, but the gold cat on c1 is not. The dogs on a6 and b6 do not freeze each other because they are of equal strength. An elephant cannot be frozen, since there is nothing stronger, but an elephant can be blockaded.

#### Capturing

[edit]

A piece which enters a trap square is captured and removed from the game unless there is a friendly piece orthogonally adjacent. Silver could move to capture the gold horse on d6 by pushing it to c6 with the elephant on d5. A piece on a trap square is captured when all adjacent friendly pieces move away. Thus if the silver rabbit on c4 and the silver horse on c2 move away, voluntarily or by being dislodged, the silver rabbit on c3 will be captured.

Note that a piece may voluntarily step into a trap square, even if it is thereby captured. Also, the second step of a pulling maneuver is completed even if the piece doing the pulling is captured on the first step. For example, Silver could step the silver rabbit from f4 to g4 (so that it will no longer support pieces at f3), and then step the silver horse from f2 to f3, which captures the horse; the horse's move could still pull the gold rabbit from f1 to f2.

## Strategy and tactics

[edit]

For beginning insights into good play, see the Arimaa Wikibook.

Karl Juhnke, twice Arimaa world champion,[11] has written a book titled Beginning Arimaa which gives an introduction to Arimaa tactics and strategies. Also Jean Daligault, six time Arimaa world champion,[11] wrote Arimaa Strategies and Tactics which is geared towards those who have started playing Arimaa and want to improve their game.

## Annual tournaments

[edit]

### World Championship

[edit]

Each year since 2004 the Arimaa community has held a World Championship tournament.[11] The tournament is played over the Internet and is open to everyone. Past and current world champion title holders are:[11]

* 2004 – Frank Heinemann of Germany
* 2005 – Karl Juhnke of USA
* 2006 – Till Wiechers of Germany
* 2007 – Jean Daligault of France
* 2008 – Karl Juhnke of USA
* 2009 – Jean Daligault of France
* 2010 – Jean Daligault of France
* 2011 – Jean Daligault of France
* 2012 – Hirohumi Takahashi of Japan
* 2013 – Jean Daligault of France
* 2014 – Jean Daligault of France
* 2015 – Mathew Brown of USA
* 2016 – Mathew Brown of USA
* 2017 – Mathew Brown of USA
* 2018 – Matthew Craven of USA
* 2019 – Jerome Richmond of Great Britain
* 2020 – Mathew Brown of USA
* 2021 – Mathew Brown of USA
* 2022 – Jerome Richmond of Great Britain
* 2023 – Mathew Brown of USA

### World Computer Championship

[edit]

Each year from 2004 to 2015 the Arimaa community held a World Computer Championship tournament.[11] The tournament is played over the Internet and is open to everyone. The current champion is sharp developed by David Wu of the USA.[11] Past computer world champion title holders are:[11]

* 2004 – Bomb developed by David Fotland of USA
* 2005 – Bomb developed by David Fotland of USA
* 2006 – Bomb developed by David Fotland of USA
* 2007 – Bomb developed by David Fotland of USA
* 2008 – Bomb developed by David Fotland of USA
* 2009 – clueless developed by Jeff Bacher of Canada
* 2010 – marwin developed by Mattias Hultgren of Sweden
* 2011 – sharp developed by David Wu of USA
* 2012 – marwin developed by Mattias Hultgren of Sweden
* 2013 – ziltoid developed by Ricardo Barreira of Portugal
* 2014 – sharp developed by David Wu of USA
* 2015 – sharp developed by David Wu of USA

### Arimaa Challenge

[edit]

The Arimaa Challenge was a cash prize of around $10,000 that was to have been available annually until 2020 for the first computer program to win the human-versus-computer Arimaa challenge.[12] As part of the conditions of the prize, the computer program must run on standard, off-the-shelf hardware.[12]

The Arimaa Challenge was held twelve times, starting in 2004. Following the second match, Syed changed the format to require the software to win two out of three games against each of three players, to reduce the psychological pressure on individual volunteer defenders. Also Syed called for outside sponsorship of the Arimaa Challenge to build a bigger prize fund.

Year  | Prize[a] | Challenger / Developer  | Human Defender (Human Rank)[13][b] | Result  | Notes

|
|
|
|
|

2004  | $10,000  | Bomb /
David Fotland  | Omar Syed (1)  | 0–8  | Syed gave a rabbit handicap in the last game and won.
2005  | $10,000  | Bomb /
David Fotland  | Frank Heinemann (5)  | 1–7  | No handicap games
2006  | $17,500  | Bomb /
David Fotland  | Karl Juhnke (1)
Greg Magne (2)
Paul Mertens (5)  | 0–3
0–3
1–2  | Mertens gave a camel handicap in his last game and lost.
2007  | $17,100  | Bomb /
David Fotland  | Karl Juhnke (1)
Omar Syed (9)
Brendan M (12)
N Siddiqui (23)  | 0–3
0–3
0–2
1–0  | Juhnke gave handicaps of a dog, a horse, and a camel respectively, and won all three. Syed gave a cat handicap in his last game and won. Siddiqui substituted for Brendan's third game.
2008  | $17,000  | Bomb /
David Fotland  | Jean Daligault (2)
Greg Magne (3)
Mark Mistretta (20)
Omar Syed (24)  | 0–3
0–3
0–1
0–2  | No handicap games. Syed substituted for Mistretta's final two games.
2009  | $16,500  | Clueless /
Jeff Bacher  | Jean Daligault (1)
Karl Juhnke (2)
Jan Macura (14)
Omar Syed (18)  | 0–2
1–2
1–2
0–1  | Juhnke gave a dog handicap in his second game and lost. Daligault gave a horse handicap in his last game and won. Syed substituted for Daligault's first game.
2010  | $16,250  | Marwin /
Mattias Hultgren  | Greg Magne (3)
Louis-Daniel Scott (10)
Patrick Dudek (23)  | 0–3
1–2
2–1  | Scott gave a dog handicap in his second game and lost.
2011  | $11,000  | Marwin /
Mattias Hultgren  | Karl Juhnke (3)
Gregory Clark (7)
Toby Hudson (14)  | 1–2
0–3
0–3  | Juhnke gave a cat handicap in his last game and lost.
2012  | $11,150  | Briareus /
Ricardo Barreira  | Jean Daligault (1)
Hirohumi Takahashi (2)
Eric Momsen (5)  | 0-3
0-3
3-0  | Takahashi gave a cat handicap in his last game and won.
2013  | $11,000  | Marwin /
Mattias Hultgren  | Mathew Brown (4)
Greg Magne (6)
Matthew Craven (31)  | 0-3
0-3
1-2  | Magne gave a cat handicap in his last game and won. Brown gave a horse handicap in his last game and won.
2014  | $12,000  | Ziltoid /
Ricardo Barreira  | Karl Juhnke (3)
Samuel Schüler (12)
Max Manual (73)[c] | 0-3
1-2
1-2  | No handicap games.
2015  | $12,000  | Sharp /
David Wu  | Mathew Brown (1)
Jean Daligault (4)
Lev Ruchka (13)  | 2-1
2-1
3-0  | David Wu wins the Arimaa Challenge.

In the first five challenge cycles, David Fotland, programmer of Many Faces of Go, won the Arimaa Computer Championship and the right to play for the prize money, only to see his program beaten decisively each year. In 2009 Fotland's program was surpassed by several new programs in the same year, the strongest of which was Clueless by Jeff Bacher. Humanity's margin of dominance over computers appeared to widen each year from 2004 to 2008 as the best human players improved, but the 2009 Arimaa Challenge was more competitive. Clueless became the first bot to win two games of a Challenge match.

In 2010, Mattias Hultgren's bot Marwin edged out Clueless in the computer championship. In the Challenge match Marwin became the first bot to win two out of three games against a single human defender, and also the first bot to win three of the nine games overall. In 2011, however, Marwin won only one of the nine games, and that one having received a material handicap. In 2012 a new challenger, Briareus, became the first program to defeat a top-ten player, sweeping all three games from the fifth-ranked human. In 2013, however, the humans struck back against Marwin, with #4 and #6 each sweeping including a handicap win, and #31 winning two of three games. In 2014, the computer bounced back to win two games, albeit no matches.

In 2015, Sharp made a substantial leap in playing strength. After having scored 6-6 in twelve games against its top two computer rivals the previous year, Sharp went undefeated in the computer tournaments of 2015, including 13-0 against the second- and third-place finishers. Sharp dominated the pre-Challenge screening against human opponents, winning 27 of 29 games. In the Challenge itself, Sharp clinched victory in each of the three mini-matches by winning the first six games, finishing 7-2 overall and winning the Arimaa challenge.[12] Wu published a paper describing the algorithm and most of ICGA Journal Issue 38/1 was dedicated to this topic.[14] The algorithm combined traditional alpha–beta pruning (changing sides every 4 ply) with heuristic functions manually written while analysing human expert games.[15]

After DeepMind's AlphaZero mastered Go, Chess, and Shogi simply by playing itself, Omar Syed announced a $10,000 prize for the creation of such an Arimaa bot which could win a 10-game match against Sharp. This has not yet been done.[16]

## See also

[edit]

* Computer Arimaa
* Game complexity
* Anti-computer tactics
* Games inspired by chess
* Competitions and prizes in artificial intelligence
* List of world championships in mind sports

## Notes

[edit]

1. ^ The history of prize fund pledges is as follows: In 2002 Omar Syed pledged $10,000 until 2020; Prior to 2006 Omar Syed pledged an additional $5,000 until 2010; Prior to 2006 Paul Mertens pledged $2,000 for 2006, $1,500 for 2007, $1,000 for 2008, $500 for 2009, and $250 for 2010; Prior to 2006 Karl Juhnke pledged $500 for 2006; Prior to 2007 Karl Juhnke pledged $600 for 2007; Prior to 2008 Karl Juhnke pledged $1,000 for 2008; Prior to 2009 Karl Juhnke pledged $1,000 for 2009; Prior to 2010 Karl Juhnke pledged $1,000 for 2010; Prior to 2011 Karl Juhnke pledged $1,000 for 2011
2. ^ The listed ranks include inactive players. Among active players only, the 2010 ranks were Magne(3), Scott(9), Dudek(16), the 2011 ranks were Juhnke(3), Clark(5), Hudson(10), the 2012 ranks were the same as listed, the 2013 ranks were Brown(3), Magne(5), Craven(17), the 2014 ranks were Juhnke(2), Schüler(10), and Manual(33), and the 2015 ranks were Daligault(3) and Ruchka(10).
3. ^ Manual was an anti-computer specialist with too few games against human opponents for accurate ranking.

## References

[edit]

1. ^ "The Creation of Arimaa".
2. ^ Syed, Omar; Syed, Aamir (2003). "Arimaa – a New Game Designed to be Difficult for Computers". International Computer Games Association Journal. 26: 138–139.
3. ^ Rohrer, Finlo (24 November 2013). "The unwinnable game". BBC News.
4. ^ "Arimaa Forum - plz say more about the design decisions".
5. ^ "Arimaa: Game Over?".
6. ^ "GAMES Game Awards". Archived from the original on 2015-12-19.
7. ^ "Murphy Monitor - Accolades keep coming for Murphy strategy game inventor". Archived from the original on 2015-02-03. Retrieved 2013-05-02.
8. ^ "Arimaa". Parents' Choice Foundation. Archived from the original on 2016-03-25. Retrieved 2013-05-02.
9. ^ "Arimaa Game Rules".
10. ^ "Open Game Window".
11. ^ a b c d e f g "The Arimaa World Championship".
12. ^ a b c "The Arimaa Challenge".
13. ^ The Arimaa Forum The rank of human players was calculated from human games only, and does not necessarily reflect anti-computer expertise or lack thereof.
14. ^ "Arimaa: ChessProgramming Wiki". Archived from the original on 2017-05-18. Retrieved 2015-10-16.
15. ^ Wu, David (2015). "Designing a Winning Arimaa Program" (PDF). ICGA Journal. 38 (1): 19–40. doi:10.3233/ICG-2015-38104.
16. ^ "Arimaa Forum - This is getting scary".

## Further reading

[edit]

* Wikibook: Arimaa Strategy
* Daligault, Jean (2012). Arimaa Strategies and Tactics. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 145288417X
* Juhnke, Fritz (2009). Beginning Arimaa: Chess Reborn Beyond Computer Comprehension. Flying Camel Publications. ISBN 978-0-9824274-0-8.
* Syed, Omar; Syed, Aamir (2003), "Arimaa – a New Game Designed to be Difficult for Computers", International Computer Games Association Journal 26: 138–139, International Computer Games Association

## External links

[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Arimaa pieces.

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Arimaa

* Official Arimaa website
* David Fotland's Arimaa program
* The Arimaa Public License

* v
* t
* e

Chess variants (list)

Orthodox rules|

| Different starting position|

* Fischer random chess
* Displacement chess
* Transcendental chess

|

Different number of pieces|

* Dunsany's chess
* Handicap

Unorthodox board|

* Balbo's game
* Circular chess
* Cylinder chess
* Double chess
* Grid chess
* Hexagonal chess (Cross chess, Masonic chess)
* Infinite chess
* Millennium 3D chess
* Minichess (Los Alamos chess)
* Rhombic chess
* Spherical chess
* Three-dimensional chess
* Triangular chess

Unorthodox
rules with
traditional
pieces|

| Standard
8×8 board|

* Andernach chess
* Atomic chess
* Beirut chess
* Checkless chess
* Chessplus
* Circe chess
* Crazyhouse
* Cubic chess
* Dynamo chess
* Extinction chess
* Hostage chess
* Knight relay chess
* Legan chess
* Losing chess
* Madrasi chess
* Monochromatic chess
* Patrol chess
* PlunderChess
* Portal chess
* Progressive chess
* Three-check chess
* Way of the Knight

|

Multimove variants|

* Avalanche chess
* Kung-Fu Chess
* Marseillais chess
* Monster chess
* Progressive chess

Elements of chance|

* Dark chess
* Dice chess
* Knightmare Chess
* Kriegspiel
* Penultima

Unorthodox rules on
an unorthodox board|

* Alice chess
* Apocalypse
* Chad
* Chessence
* Congo
* Diplomat chess
* Dragonfly
* Jeson Mor
* Parallel worlds chess
* Rollerball
* 5D Chess with Multiverse Time Travel

Unorthodox
rules using
non-traditional
pieces|

| Standard 8×8 board|

* Baroque
* Berolina
* Chakra
* Chess with different armies
* Duell
* Falcon–hunter chess
* Grasshopper chess
* Musketeer chess
* Pocket mutation chess
* Cheskers

|

Compound pieces|

* Almost chess
* Capablanca chess
* Capablanca random chess
* Chancellor chess
* Embassy chess
* Grand Chess
* Janus Chess
* Maharajah and the Sepoys
* Modern chess
* Seirawan chess
* Tutti-frutti chess

Unorthodox
boards and pieces|

* Chesquerque
* Chess on a really big board
* Courier-Spiel
* Dragonchess
* Gess
* Omega Chess
* Stratomic
* Dekle's triangular chess
* 2000 A.D.
* Wildebeest chess
* Wolf chess

Multiplayer|

* Bosworth
* Bughouse chess
* Business chess
* Djambi
* Duchess
* Enochian chess
* Forchess
* Fortress chess
* Four Fronts
* Four-player chess
* Gala
* Hand and brain
* Quatrochess
* Three-man chess
* Three-player chess
* Tri-chess

Inspired games|

* Arimaa
* Jetan
* Martian chess
* Navia Dratp
* The Duke

Chess-related
games|

| Historical|

* Chadarangam
* Chaturaji
* Chaturanga
* Courier chess
* Grant Acedrex
* Shatranj
* Short assize
* Tamerlane chess

|

Regional|

* Janggi
* variants
* Makruk
* Senterej
* Shatar
* Shogi
* Chu shogi
* Dai shogi
* Other variants
* Sittuyin
* Xiangqi
* Jungle
* Banqi
* Manchu chess
* Game of the Three Kingdoms
* Game of the Three Friends
* Game of the Seven Kingdoms
* Other variants

Software|

* ChessV
* Fairy-Max
* XBoard
* Zillions of Games

Related|

* Correspondence chess
* Fairy chess
* Fairy chess piece
* Fairy Chess Review
* The Chess Variant Pages

Authority control databases: National |

* United States
* Israel

|

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template