Zertz. $34.99
As could be read in the Editorial about playing ZÈRTZ with additional rings:
“… First there was Yoshi Ikkai (J). He played several games per day for a period of four months and came up with the strategy of repositioning the marbles on the board by making sacrifices. His point of departure was simple: I can give whatever I want as long as the pay off will bring me closer to victory than my opponent.
He showed his method of playing ZÈRTZ to Stephen Tavener (GB); he stuffed Stephen with 11 marbles to capture 4 white marbles himself. A hit! Stephen, amazed by Yoshi’s approach of the game, got into practising long sequences of moves and went one step further: he specialised in combining capturing by jumping with capturing by isolation and, even more significant, he launched the sacrifice to prevent the opponent from getting “sente” (the initiative). This sacrifice concerns giving more than what you get yourself, with the purpose to remain in turn.”
You want to know more about how Stephen Tavener’s approaches a game of ZÈRTZ ? Then read the article he wrote about his strategies. It was initially published in four parts in Abstract Games Magazine, a fantastic magazine that is completely focussed on – as you may have guessed – abstract games.
Zertz played between advanced players consists of a series of combinations and counter combinations. As the previous reviews have stated, played against a much better player, a beginner may find him or herself in a flurry of forced moves.
The rules are relatively simple. Players alternate placing marbles on the board and removing an empty ring accessible from the edge. Capture by jumping (including multiple jumps if possible) is mandatory.
The game has multiple winning conditions. For the standard game one has to capture three white marbles (out of five) or four grey marbles (out of seven), or five blacks (out of nine) or one can capture two of each colour. In the Tournament game the requirements are four whites out of six, five grey out of eight, or six black out of ten, or three of each.
Having played many games I finally was able to place my finger on why I believe that the Tournament game is superior to the standard one. Simply put, in the Tournament the total number of each type of marble is even.
Many of the most interesting end games arise in positions in which each player has managed to capture three white marbles rendering a win via white marbles alone impossible. One has to rely on another colour or on a three-three-three win.
In the Standard game there is no way one player can place a win by white marbles out of the reach of the other reducing the importance of the more difficult winning conditions.
To give an example of how quickly a combination can develop, if one opens the first move of the game by placing a marble of any colour on the edge (and removing any ring on the edge), the opponent can now find a combination of moves that will leave a rather moth-eaten empty board in which he or she will have two white marbles to your six (one white, two grey, three black).
Upon your playing one more marble you will find that after sacrificing a maximum of five more marbles (in the Tournament game one can give up eleven marbles without yielding the game), your opponent will win two more white marbles by isolation winning the game. I am being vague about details simply because there is a variant of this combination no matter what the first move is (provided it is on the edge).
A while ago someone showed me that the same holds true on move one if one plays a marble not on the edge and removes any ring but a corner (these observations do not generalise to move two!).
The most effective combinations involve isolation and leaving the board empty. This observation follows from the fact that faced with a board with N marbles, one can win a maximum of N+1 marbles by isolation. Some extreme combinations ensue after three marbles are placed and involve a grand sacrifice of eleven marbles to win four whites in one fell swoop.
The other form of combination involves setting up jumps (i.e., forcing the opponent to jump one or more marbles into a position where you can jump them). A typical combination on the fourth move, involves manipulating the marbles to set up a capture netting you two whites (usually a fair trade if you give up no more than five or six marbles and obviously no more than one white).
Since one marble must remain on the board to do the capturing, this kind of combination can maximally gain you N-1 marbles if you are left with a board containing N already. Of course the other advantage of the former kind of combination is that no combinations are possible at all starting with an empty board.
Using the arguments above, and by following the example of stronger players, one eventually gets a feeling for what one can hope to achieve out of a position. I find, for example, it useful to envision a part of the board I would like to isolate and then figure out how many rings I would have to remove if I could take them away without jumping. Only then, if the number of moves is reasonable for the gain, do I plot how to exercise a sequence of jumps taking those specific rings away.
Many players have graduated from the somewhat well understood (although certainly not completely solved) 37 ring board to a 48 ring board. This requires either two Zertz sets or the Gipf Expansion Set #2. In fact, two expansion sets enables play on the 61 ring board (unfortunately the only server I knew that supported that size is defunct).
Zertz is (in my opinion) a nearly ideal PBEM game as it allows for deep analysis turn by turn. There is a thriving group of players on Richard’s PBEM Server. Also, for those who cannot take a Zertz board with them everywhere, the program ZF1 (Zertz-for-One) by Michael Reitz is a terrific means for visualising and analysing positions. It does not play (as of this writing) but it enables one to set up board positions and track various lines of play including keeping track of multiple branches (more advanced combinations often bifurcate when one is forced to give ones opponent a choice of jump directions).
Overall, Zertz is one of my favourite abstract board games of all time.
Acknowledgement: Lyman Hurd
