text:
Diplomacy/Rules

Object of the game
The object of the game is to use your armies and fleets to conquer as much of Europe as you can. Specifically, you must capture and be in possession of at least 18 of the 34 nations or provinces on the map that contain supply centres - i.e. a simple majority - at the end of a year.

Quite often the game ends in a two-way, three-way, or even four-way draw. Draws are generally agreed upon by all players or are declared after a pre-set time limit has been reached with all surviving participants sharing in the win.

The game board
The board is divided into a large number of spaces, each identified by a name (often abbreviated to three letters). There are three types of space on the board: ocean or sea spaces, land spaces, and coastal land spaces. The type of space determines which units can occupy them.

34 of the land provinces are supply centers. Possession of these supply centers allows the powers who control them to raise and maintain armies and fleets. As they are also a central part of the game's victory conditions, they are the focus of much of the game's activity.

Each player is given three (save for Russia, which has four) home supply centers. These spaces are the starting point for their owning power's initial forces. The players can then build new units at these home supply centers as they capture further supply centers. New units can only be built on a power's home supply centers. If a power loses all of its home supply centers it may continue to play; however, it may not build new units until it has recaptured at least one of its home supply centers.

Three specific coastal land spaces have multiple and separate coastlines: Spain, Bulgaria, and St. Petersburg. When occupying these coastal areas, fleets are considered to be stationed at one coast or the other, and cannot travel "through" a land space to get to the sea space off its opposite coast. They are readily identifiable by their specific coast names; for instance, Spain is marked with NC (North Coast) and SC (South Coast).

Other specific land spaces do allow fleets to travel through them from a sea space on one side to a sea space on the other. These land spaces are identified by the channel of water that goes through them. For example, a fleet could move from the Aegean Sea through Constantinople to the Black Sea in two moves, as long as those spaces were unoccupied.

Units
In Diplomacy, there are two types of units: Armies and Fleets. An army can travel in land spaces and coastal land spaces, and a fleet can travel in sea spaces and coastal land spaces.

Although all of the supply centers are on land, only seven supply centers are completely landlocked. Fleets are important to convoy armies across water, support coastal battles, create a blockade on sea spaces so that other fleets cannot expand, etc. Some countries can live without fleets since they are nearly landlocked geographically. Such countries include Russia, Germany, and especially Austria. On the other hand, English fleets are absolutely necessary since without them England cannot convoy armies to the mainland.

All units in Diplomacy move only one space at a time and only one unit may occupy any space at any time. The exception to this rule comes in the form of a successful convoy, where a convoyed army may travel multiple spaces depending on the length of the chain created by the convoying fleets. A convoyed army must embark from a coastal land province and land at a coastal land province.

Game Phases
Gameplay begins in the year 1901, and there are two moves or Movement Phases per year, one in Spring, and one in Fall.

 * Before each move, orders for all of a player's units are written in secret and submitted to the arbitrator, who then makes all necessary adjustments to the board/map.
 * If a unit is dislodged as a result of the move (overpowered by other players), the player must submit Retreat Phase orders that the unit either be retreated to an unoccupied adjacent province or else disbanded and removed from play.
 * A unit may not retreat to the province from where the dislodging unit came or to an "embattled" province, meaning one left vacant by a bounce/standoff that turn.
 * If a unit has no legal retreats, or it attempts to retreat to the same province as another retreating unit, it is disbanded.
 * After the Fall move and the subsequent Retreat Phase, and before the next year begins, a tally is made of the total number of supply centers controlled by each Power. A Power controls a supply center if:
 * 1) it has a unit (army or fleet) occupying the province with that supply center or
 * 2) the province with the supply center is unoccupied and the Power was the last to occupy that province at the end of a year.
 * Each supply center can support one military unit, so Powers that have gained supply centers over the course of the year can build new units. New units may be created at any of the player's unoccupied home supply centers, but only at these centers, and at most one unit per center. For this reason, no more than 3 new units per player can ever be created at a time (except in the case of Russia, which has 4 home supply centers).
 * Supply centers only change ownership if they're occupied at the end of Fall; they do not change ownership if a unit moves through them during the Spring, but leaves again in Fall.
 * On the other hand, if a Power has more units than supply centers at the end of the year, then it must disband units of its choice until it has equal numbers of units and supply centers.
 * Powers may not choose to disband below the number of supply centers in their possession, for this would allow players to replace units in the field with new units back home instantaneously. For instance, a player who has more armies than necessary and wants a fleet in order to capture a far-away supply center cannot simply disband an army and build a new fleet on a home supply center. (See "Movement" below).

Orders and the Movement Phase
There are four basic orders in Diplomacy: Hold, Attack, Support, and Convoy.

At each Movement Phase, players may order each unit either to hold its position, to attack (or move to) another province, or to support another unit (either to hold its position or to attack a province). Fleets may also be ordered to convoy armies across bodies of water to coastal provinces.

Hold
This is the default for all units (what they will do if not given any other orders). The unit will stay in its position, and will not move, support, convoy, or do anything. Holding units can be supported by units in neighboring provinces or be attacked by foreign units. If the attacking unit has more units supporting it than the holding unit, the holding unit is ousted from that province and must either retreat or disband (see above).

A hold order is written as follows:

Army/Fleet (Province that the unit is in) holds.

Example: Italy: Army Rome holds.

Attack/Move
This order moves the unit in one province to an adjacent province. Of course, armies cannot move into sea provinces, and fleets cannot move into landlocked provinces.

A unit may not move into a province held by another unit unless it has support. As units may be supported either in attacking a province or in holding a province, the attacking unit must have more support than the defending unit if the attack is to be successful. If the attack is not successful, the attacking unit does not move anywhere.

Two units may not swap provinces, unless there is a convoy involved.

A move order is written as follows:

Army/Fleet (Province that the unit is in) to (destination province).

Examples:

Army Rome to Venice
 * Italy

Fleet Brest to English Channel
 * France

When the destination province is occupied by another unit, for instance:

Fleet Trieste holds
 * Austria-Hungary

Army Venice to Trieste
 * Italy

Army Venice and Fleet Trieste do not move, unless either are attacked or defended by stronger support.

When two units with equal support try to move into the same destination province, for instance:

Army Munich to Tyrolia
 * Germany

Army Venice to Tyrolia
 * Italy

Neither of the two units can go into Tyrolia. Army Venice will stay in Venice, and Army Munich will stay in Munich. Again, this is assuming that these two units are the only two units in this little battle, and that they have equal support for their moves.

Support
Support is the trickiest aspect of the rules, and the most important of the game. Support may involve cooperation between two (or more) powers, and is the only way to make forward progress through enemy territory (unless you can convince the enemy to let you in). Simply put, more support defeats less support.

The support order is given in reference to another unit's move. That other unit's move must be to a province into which the supporting unit could otherwise move. Support may also be given to a unit holding its position. In addition, units giving support can themselves be supported in their holding position.

Support is a unit's sole action for a given move, and supporting units remain where they are (unless they are attacked by greater support and have to retreat or disband during the retreat phase).

A country cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of one of its own units, although if same country's units attempt to move into the same province with equal support, neither will succeed as normal.

Cutting Support: If the supporting unit is attacked during the turn by some other unit, its support is cut. In effect, the support order becomes a hold order, as the unit must defend its province against the attack. Note that a unit occupying the province into which the support is directed cannot cut support, unless its attack successfully dislodges the supporting unit. An attack by a country on one of its own units also doesn't cut support.

Support orders are written thus: Army/Fleet (Space that the supporting unit is in) supports Army/Fleet (Space that the supported unit is in) to (destination of supported unit) or Army/Fleet (Space that the supporting unit is in) supports Army/Fleet (Space that the supported unit is holding)

Example:

NB: Below are complete orders as submitted by all 7 Powers for the Fall 1907 campaign season of a made-up game to help you understand the intricacies of supporting and breaking support. Having a game map to look on with is highly recommended; the one provided at the top of this page is adequate.

We'll start with:

 * --Germany--
 * Army Ruhr to Holland
 * Fleet Kiel supports Army Ruhr to Holland
 * Army Munich supports Army Ruhr to Holland

Note that in this case the order for Munich to support Ruhr into Holland would not work because Munich does not border Holland and thus cannot support Ruhr in (Munich could, however, support Ruhr if Ruhr were simply holding). The rule for supporting an attack is that a supporting unit must border the province being attacked, but need not border the attacker's province of origin (to support a unit to hold, however, the supporting unit must border the supported unit). Essentially, the supporting unit must border the destination of the supported unit, whether it is its own province or a new province entirely. In sum, Ruhr is actually attacking Holland with the support of only one unit (Fleet Kiel).

 * Army Prussia supports Army Silesia
 * Army Silesia supports Army Prussia

Here, Army Prussia is supported by one unit, and Army Silesia is supported by one unit. The last two moves are legal, and this method of double-support is helpful when there are two units that both could be attacked and dislodged. Of course, if both units are attacked, the support fails.

 * --England--
 * Army London to Holland
 * Fleet North Sea convoys Army London to Holland (<-- a convoy)
 * Fleet Heligoland Bight supports Army London to Holland

Note that the convoying fleet is not considered to be giving support, so Army London actually has support from only one unit: Fleet Heligoland-Bight.

 * Army Denmark to Kiel

Here England interferes with Germany's plans (see Germany, above) by attacking Kiel with Army Denmark. This cuts the support of Fleet Kiel to Army Ruhr, thereby leaving Army Ruhr's attack on Holland unsupported.

Army London, on the other hand, (see above) is supported in its attack on Holland by one unit (Fleet Heligoland-Bight), thereby enabling Army London to be convoyed successfully into Holland, as long as Fleet North Sea is not dislodged during the convoy.

 * Army Picardy to Brest
 * Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean supports Army Picardy to Brest
 * Fleet English Channel supports Army Picardy to Brest

Here Army Picardy is supported by both Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean and Fleet English Channel to move into Brest. Unless the French successfully defend it, England will also take Brest.

--France--

 * Fleet Gascony to Mid-Atlantic Ocean
 * Fleet Irish Sea to English Channel

Fleet Gascony and Fleet Irish Sea cut the support by Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean and Fleet English Channel for England's Army Picardy (see England, above). Therefore, Army Picardy is now attacking Brest unsupported.

 * Fleet Brest holds
 * Army Paris supports Fleet Brest

Army Paris supports Fleet Brest, and so Army Picardy’s now unsupported attempt to move into Brest fails.

 * Army Burgundy to Ruhr

Army Burgundy does not successfully move into Ruhr because Army Ruhr’s move to Holland failed (see Germany and England, above).

--Russia--

Fleet Sevastopol holds Army Moscow supports Fleet Sevastopol

Fleet Sevastopol is supported by Army Moscow.

Fleet St. Petersburg (North Coast) to Norway Army Finland supports Fleet St. Petersburg (North Coast) to Norway

Norway is not occupied, so Russia takes it immediately.

Army Livonia to Prussia

Unsupported Army Livonia attempts to move into Prussia, but since Army Prussia is supported by Army Silesia (see Germany, above), the attack is not successful.

--Austria-Hungary--

Army Ukraine supports Fleet Sevastopol

Army Ukraine supports Fleet Sevastopol, so there are now two units supporting (see Russia, above). In fact, international support is necessary in alliances, whether supporting each other in defence or to attack another Power.

Fleet Trieste holds Army Budapest supports Fleet Trieste Army Vienna supports Fleet Trieste

There are two units supporting Fleet Trieste: Army Budapest and Army Vienna.

--Turkey--

Army Galicia to Ukraine

Army Galicia cuts the Austrian support to Sevastopol, thereby decreasing the support to Sevastopol by one unit (see Austria and Russia, above).

Fleet Black Sea to Sevastopol Army Armenia supports Fleet Black Sea to Sevastopol Army Rumania supports Fleet Black Sea to Sevastopol

Now, since Fleet Black Sea is supported by two units into Sevastopol, Fleet Black Sea moves into Sevastopol, and Fleet Sevastopol has to be disbanded or retreat. A retreating fleet that is displaced by another force can only retreat into a movable space (i.e. a sea or coastal province that is vacant) which may not be the same space that was previously occupied by the displacing unit.

Since Fleet Sevastopol has nowhere to retreat, it disbands automatically.

--Italy--

Army Apulia to Trieste Fleet Adriatic Sea convoys Army Apulia to Trieste Army Venezia supports Army Apulia to Trieste Fleet Albania supports Army Apulia to Trieste

There are two units supporting Army Apulia into Trieste, but since Fleet Trieste is supported by two units (see Austria-Hungary, above), the attack bounces.

Finally note that the orders for both the army being convoyed and the fleet doing the convoying must use the proper protocol and fully identify the units involved in the convoy. This is a complex manoeuver and becomes more complex if it involves units controlled by more than one power.

Convoy
This move is used to transfer army units across sea spaces, or to move large distances in one move. Only armies may be convoyed, and only fleets may convoy.

Let us say, for instance, that in Fall 1901 England has the following position: Army Yorkshire Fleet North Sea Fleet English Channel

A convoy order would be:

--England-- Army Yorkshire to Norway Fleet North Sea convoys Army Yorkshire to Norway

Army Yorkshire will move to Norway, unless another unit should prevent this process by dislodging or destroying the convoying fleet. If a convoy order fails and the convoyed piece could not ordinarily move there without the convoy, the convoyed army unit holds.

The unit being convoyed can be supported into its destination space by any other units that border the destination space, just like any other support. However, if the convoying fleet is dislodged, it cannot convoy the unit and the entire move will fail. Note that convoys are not "broken" as easily as support; a convoying fleet that is attacked but not dislodged will successfully carry out its convoy order.

Convoying fleets can be supported to prevent them from being dislodged or destroyed. Convoying fleets cannot perform any other order.

A fleet on a coastal space may not convoy.

If an army can arrive to its destination either by land or convoy, convoy is used if at least one of the convoying fleets belongs to the army's owner, or if army's owner specified "via convoy" on the army's move order; otherwise, land route is used.

If several fleets are convoying an army so that it can take multiple routes to its destination, convoy succeeds as long as at least one convoy route remains open.

Abbreviation of Orders
Most orders are not written out as lengthily as they are in our examples. For instance, here is a set of Russia's moves written in an abbreviated form:

A Mos H A War-Gal A Bud S A War-Gal A Sev-Ank F Bla C A Sev-Ank

Abbreviations of most provinces are written as the first three letters of the name; for instance, Bal for Baltic Sea, Lon for London, and so on. There are exceptions for the provinces whose names begin with "Nor", as there are several; many use the following: Nth for the North Sea, NAt or NAO for the North Atlantic Ocean, NAf for North Africa, Nwg for the Norwegian Sea, Nwy for Norway. Additionally, the Tyrrhenian Sea is abbreviated as TyS or Tyh to avoid conflict with Tyrolia (Tyr).

title: Diplomacy/Rules


text:
Cookbook:Herb Bubble Bread

Herb bubble bread is nice type of bread that is a good accompaniment to any meal. This recipe is for use with a bread machine.

Dough

 * 4 ounces water
 * 4 ounces milk
 * 1 teaspoon salt
 * 1 standard egg, beaten
 * 2 tablespoons softened butter or margarine
 * 1 tablespoon white granulated sugar
 * 2 ½ cups bread flour
 * 2 ¼ teaspoons active dry yeast

Herb mixture

 * ¼ cup butter or margarine
 * 1 teaspoon paprika
 * ¼ cup grated Parmesan cheese
 * ½ teaspoon garlic powder
 * ½ teaspoon dried minced onion
 * ⅛ teaspoon ground savory

Special equipment

 * Bread machine
 * Loaf pan

Procedure

 * 1) Measure all ingredients for the dough into the bread pan. Set your bread machine to the dough setting.
 * 2) Remove dough after it's finished mixing in the bread machine.
 * 3) In a small bowl, combine the herb mixture in the order listed.
 * 4) Preheat oven to 350°F (180°C).
 * 5) Divide the dough into 12–16 equal parts and shape into balls.
 * 6) Roll each ball into the herb mixture and arrange in greased loaf pan.
 * 7) Cover with a cloth and let rise in a draft-free place until doubled (about 30 minutes).
 * 8) Bake for 25–30 minutes or until brown.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * All ingredients should be at room temperature (70–80°F/21–27°C).
 * Cooking times may vary between various models of ovens.
 * This dough can also be made into 12–16 rolls/buns, 6–8 mini loaves, or 1 regular sized loaf of bread.
 * To cut the cooking time in half, preheat oven to 400°C. Then bake for 15 minutes and your rolls/buns or mini loaves will come out golden brown. You might want to cook it slightly longer for a regular size loaf of this bread.
 * You can use all-purpose flour if you don't happen to have bread flour.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cookbook:Herb Bubble Bread


text:
Category:Book:Latin

fr:Catégorie:Latin hr:Kategorija:Latinski jezik it:Categoria:Latino ka:კატეგორია:ლათინური ენა la:Categoria:Lingua Latina nl:Categorie:Latijn

title: Category:Book:Latin


text:
Diplomacy/Sample Games

Sample Games of Original Diplomacy
The sample game demonstrates the game of Diplomacy. In this game, Turkey wins by capturing 18 of the 34 Supply Centers (SCs) on the map.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=58803

Maybe not the best game example. This next one is from a 2009 tournament where Russia is able to manage a solo win:

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=17149

Here's another tournament game where some very small powers are instrumental in preventing a solo by France, eventually earning a draw:

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=150781

This game features three very common alliances, England/France, Russia/Turkey and a Central Powers Alliance.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=155106

It also has an End Of Game thread where the participants explain what they were thinking:

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1248729#1248729

the FULL DISCLOSURE game (PDF). An anonymous game played at webdiplomacy.net where all the private press was eventually gathered so interested parties could see what the private press can look like - see all the lies, all the intrigue! An interesting game between skilled players, although the ending isn't very exciting.

https://docs.google.com/a/warren.kyschools.us/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaXBsb21hY3lhcmNoaXZlfGd4OjE1NGI1YmJkMGEyYTI1Y2U

title: Diplomacy/Sample Games


text: Category:Book:Lingua Franca Nova

title: Category:Book:Lingua Franca Nova


text:
Arimaa/Arimaa Challenge History

Arimaa was designed to be easier for humans than for computers, but the only way to test this was to incentivize the creation of strong Arimaa bots. The Arimaa Challenge would match the top bot against a top human player. First held in February 2004, the Challenge match would occur each year until a bot prevailed, or until 2020. If a bot ever won, its developer would win $10,000 pledged by Omar Syed, and sometimes more pledged by others. The bot would always run on off-the-shelf hardware, not something advanced or outdated. Syed expected that Arimaa could not be mastered by sheer calculating power until 2020 or later, and hoped that bots would take a human-like approach to Arimaa.

2004
A year before the first Challenge match was to be held, Omar Syed contacted David Fotland, a programmer who specialized in the board game. Fotland acknowledged that Arimaa's large could indeed pose a problem for computers, but thought computers would have an initial advantage for a reason Syed had not considered: as a new game, Arimaa was unexplored. The first human defender would have at most one year of experience against other new players; even a highly motivated and talented player would be limited by what he could practice against. Fotland thus felt that the Challenge could be won in the first year, but was reluctant to take on such a project. Syed thus promised to double the prize to $20,000 if a bot could win the very first Challenge. After comparing notes with Syed and, Fotland created an initial bot that defeated Syed twice. Fotland decided to go for it.

In order to enter the upcoming competition, a bot had to first play twenty public games with at least six different opponents, including at least three humans. Wanting to discover his bot's weaknesses, Fotland allowed it to play many more than twenty games. This bot, named Bomb, appeared strong, until players began taking its camel hostage. This strategy proved very effective against Bomb, which Fotland then retuned to be more careful with its camel. The less aggressive Bomb remained strong against other bots, and easily won the 2004 Computer Championship.

On the human side, Frank Heinemann won the 2004 Arimaa World Championship, but was reluctant to defend humanity's honor and Syed's $20,000. Syed, still a top player himself, decided to defend his own prize. The Syed vs. Bomb match would consist of eight games, with each side playing four as Gold and four as Silver. In the event of a 4–4 tie, the winner would be the one whose wins used fewer total turns.

With Bomb no longer giving an easy camel hostage, the outcome was uncertain. Bomb was not programmed to learn from its games, but on the other hand it would not be tired out by this long match, as a human player might be. However, the now defensive Bomb had few answers for Syed's lone elephant attacks. In the rare event that Bomb got a material lead, it failed to capitalize. Bomb squandered its most promising game after it declined an exchange which could have pushed Syed toward a tough endgame. Despite some mistakes, Syed was clearly better at planning ahead.

After sweeping the first five games and thus defending the Challenge, Syed decided to play under extra constraints. He won the sixth game without losing a piece, and won the seventh without capturing a piece. In the eighth game he gave a material of a rabbit, and still won.

Syed's 8–0 shutout was a surprise, but vindicated his expectation that bots would struggle with long-term strategy. Fotland continued to refine Bomb, but did not expect to outpace human players as Arimaa was further explored.

2005
Not convinced that extended lone elephant attacks were ultimately a good strategy, and knowing that an elephant-camel attack was likely to result in a hostage position which would tie down the attacker's elephant and camel both, players increasingly explored elephant-horse attacks. The horse might be taken hostage, but a horse-by-elephant hostage does not usually give the hostage-holder the uniquely strongest free piece, and an effective horse-by-camel hostage is tricky to set up. As it became apparent that a positional advantage could be built even with one's horse held hostage, elephant-horse attacks became common.

David Fotland improved Bomb mostly by fixing small bugs and fine-tuning the evaluation function, but he also added one important strategic innovation: Bomb became selectively aggressive with its camel when the enemy elephant was tied up elsewhere. Bomb repeated as Computer Champion, but only after tiebreaks; other bots now appeared nearly as strong.

Four human players were ranked higher than Bomb, but the top two declined to defend the Challenge due to the time commitment required. Not wanting to defend his own prize again, third-ranked Omar Syed persuaded fourth-ranked Frank Heinemann to do it this time.

Any suspense was short-lived, as even the upgraded Bomb had little understanding of elephant-horse attacks. In the first game, Heinemann overloaded Bomb in the west while the camels gridlocked the east. The second game was similar, though longer. In the third game, Heinemann followed up his elephant-horse attack with a swarm to blockade Bomb's elephant and free his own elephant.

In the fourth game, Bomb moved its elephant in time to avoid a blockade. While still up by a cat, Heinemann moved his elephant into a corner and kept it there, likely costing him this game. That was to be Bomb's only victory. In the fifth game, Heinemann couldn't keep his blockade when he rotated out his own elephant. After a dog exchange, however, Heinemann traded a horse for Bomb's aggressive camel, and then advanced more pieces to solidify an eastern space advantage. Bomb's elephant returned to the east, and Heinemann's dog led a strong western attack. In each of the final three games, Heinemann decimated Bomb's army without losing a piece himself.

Heinemann's 7–1 victory showcased his human adaptability, as his elephant-horse attack improved and Bomb's response remained static. Not understanding how to best use its horses, Bomb consistently left itself vulnerable on the b- or g-file.

2006
Given the reluctance of top players to defend the first two Challenges, Omar Syed introduced a more player-friendly format for 2006: there would now be three human defenders, each of whom would play three games against the top bot. Any one defender could uphold the Challenge by winning at least two of his three games. This minimized both the psychological pressure and time commitment a defender would face, and made it unlikely that the Challenge would fall simply because the wrong human defender was chosen. The requirement that the bot win all three mini-matches, and not just a majority of games, was met with some skepticism. However, Syed felt that this was balanced by factors he had not originally considered. Even by 2020, Syed now reasoned, the human study of Arimaa would not approach the centuries of study of Chess or Go, nor would the player pool rival that of such classic games. Given the limited human competition, Syed felt it was reasonable to ask that a bot demonstrate clear dominance.

Bomb won the 2006 Computer Championship more easily than it had in the previous year, even though this turned out to be the unchanged 2005 Bomb, whose weaknesses were now well-known to human players.

Karl "Fritz" Juhnke, Greg Magne, and Paul Mertens swept the first eight Challenge games, not even losing a piece in six of those games. Elephant-horse attacks remained the principal strategy; if a horse advanced in the right place, Bomb's elephant would usually take it hostage, resulting in a poor alignment for Bomb. In Juhnke's first game, he traded his hostaged horse for Bomb's aggressive camel. In his other two games, Juhnke defended the hostage while capturing weak pieces at home, and eventually rotated his elephant out of hostage defense. Magne quickly attacked both away traps in his first game; once Bomb's elephant was isolated in the east, Magne's camel advanced in the west, and more pieces followed. Magne did another double-trap attack in his second game; this time, Magne lost his camel for a horse, but his goal threats tied up Bomb's elephant for the rest of the game. In his third game, Magne made captures at home. Mertens twice blockaded Bomb's elephant and dominated the board.

For the ninth and final game, Mertens gave Bomb a camel handicap. Despite this enormous disadvantage, Mertens did generate a sharp goal race, which Bomb narrowly won.

Syed had played it safe in his selection of defenders, but it seemed likely that several others could have defended the 2006 Challenge handily.

2007
The 2005 Bomb again entered the Computer Championship, and this time went undefeated. Perhaps the increased computer speed helped Bomb more than it helped other bots.

In previous years, Omar Syed had required the bots to play publicly before the Computer Championship, so that the Challenge would not be the first time the winning bot played a human. However, developers could alter their bots at any time up until the Computer Championship. For 2007, Syed dropped the pre-tournament public-play requirement, and instituted a two-week qualifying phase after the Computer Championship. The computer champion would no longer advance to the Challenge automatically; Bomb and second-place Zombie would each face a preliminary test against humans.

The three Challenge defenders were selected before the qualifying phase, from which they and the bot developers were excluded. Any other human, however, could play each of the top two bots twice, once as Gold and once as Silver. The bot that fared better in these matches would advance to the Challenge. This change ensured that the final version of the Challenge bot would have pre-Challenge games against humans, but not against the human defenders. This format also encouraged bot developers to focus on beating humans rather than bots. A new bot would have the advantage of being unknown, although that did not help Zombie, which failed to outperform Bomb in any of twelve total pairs. Bomb thus advanced to its fourth straight Challenge.

Although he was no longer top-tier, Syed selected himself as a defender. Syed's confidence was nearly punished in his first game, when his elephant rotation failed to keep shared control of c3, costing him a dog and both horses for only a dog and a cat. Nevertheless, Bomb failed to counter Syed's eastern attack. On 37g, Bomb even missed Syed's two-turn forced goal, which could have been delayed or stopped had Bomb blockaded g3 or slid pieces so that a horse could reach g2 if the g2 rabbit were pulled up. This oversight was surprising, but Arimaa allows for so many unique positions that four- search depth is usually impossible even at slow time controls. Syed did not attempt an elephant rotation in his second game, but did mount a camel-horse attack which forced a goal in 24 turns. Giving a cat handicap in his third game, Syed again advanced his camel once Bomb's elephant was marginalized. Competing camel-horse attacks ensued, and Syed's rabbit advances won the race.

The other two defenders were Brendan M and Karl "Fritz" Juhnke. Juhnke won his three games at handicaps of a dog, a horse, and a camel respectively. In the dog handicap game, Juhnke pulled ahead in material on 16g, and then got a strong trap attack which his elephant rotated out of. In the horse handicap game, Juhnke pulled even in material when Bomb gave up a horse to take a camel hostage. Juhnke freed his elephant in time to quash Bomb's attack on f6, where Juhnke soon cleaned up. In the camel handicap game, Bomb advanced its own camel and shielded it until 26g, when Juhnke took it hostage. It soon became a central hostage, and was then captured in exchange for a horse. A double-threat on 32g pulled Juhnke nearly even in material. Perhaps fearing an attack on f3, Juhnke then took Bomb's advanced horse hostage. Bomb could have given up that horse and attacked c3, but preferred to stay ahead in material. Juhnke then advanced on both wings and eventually overloaded Bomb.

Brendan dominated his first game, not losing a piece or allowing any counterplay. In his other game, Brendan blundered a horse, but soon set up a dual threat of goal in the southwest and horse capture in the northwest. Bomb could have given up its horse and still been even in material, but the extent of the threat in c3, where Brendan cleaned up while Bomb's elephant hovered around c6. Brendan soon captured Bomb's camel, and then won easily. Bomb had squandered four games in which it was up by at least a horse.

Bomb's one victory came when Naveed Siddiqui had to substitute for Brendan's second game. Each side advanced a horse in the east, but Siddiqui did nothing to counter Bomb's intruding horse. After taking Siddiqui's horse hostage and clearing the h-file, Bomb created a goal threat which led to a strong attack on f3. This attack became even stronger when Bomb's other horse joined in; Siddiqui inadvertently aided this by flipping this horse onto f6. Bomb wrapped up the game with two pretty trick moves. Not fooled by the chance to capture Bomb's elephant, Siddiqui defended goal on 29g. On 31g, however, Siddiqui succumbed to a two-turn forced goal; in blockading Bomb's elephant, he cleared f3, which allowed Bomb to create an "air bubble" on g2.

2008
The 2005 version of Bomb won its fourth straight Computer Championship, and outperformed the runner-up, Sharp, in the screening against humans. The Challenge defenders were Jean Daligault, Greg Magne, and Mark Mistretta, with Omar Syed as the backup.

In his first game, Mistretta blockaded Bomb's elephant and horse in the northeast, and won in 79 turns. Syed substituted for Mistretta's second and third games. In the second game, Syed lost material in both home traps while his camel was held hostage, but he advanced a rabbit through the middle and reached goal in 26 turns. In the third game, Syed opted for a more passive opening, and Bomb seemed to have the upper hand briefly. Syed pressed on, however, and overloaded Bomb with a trap attack and a home hostage.

Magne destroyed Bomb in his first and second games; in the second, Bomb lost all but an elephant, horse, and cat. Magne also easily won the third game, despite an unusual setup which left his rabbits highly exposed.

Daligault dominated his first and third games from start to finish. In his second game, Daligault overcame a weak opening via a strong northwestern attack. Humanity had once again dominated silicon, this time sweeping 9–0.

2009
Bomb's five-year reign came to a resounding end in 2009, a breakout year for Arimaa bots. Jeff Bacher's Clueless won the Computer Championship, and Toby Hudson's GnoBot placed second. Clueless outperformed GnoBot in the screening, and thus advanced to the Challenge. The human defenders were Jean Daligault, Karl "Fritz" Juhnke, and Jan Macura, with Omar Syed as the backup.

In his first game, Juhnke got a dog-by-horse hostage, which allowed for an elephant-camel attack on f6. Advanced rabbits helped Juhnke retain control of f6 even after his camel returned home to fight a horse. Juhnke eventually captured both the dog and the horse, and was then unstoppable. In his second game, Juhnke gave a dog handicap, which he did not overcome. In his third game, Juhnke fenced and then framed a horse, blockaded the pinned elephant, and froze the enemy camel next to the frame. Juhnke's own camel was thus the strongest piece in the east, where Juhnke soon created goal threats and gradually decimated the defending army.

In Macura's first game, Clueless decentralized its elephant to break a horse-by-camel hostage. Clueless itself held a horse-by-camel hostage below, restricting Macura's elephant, so Macura had to keep a close eye on the northeast. Macura's camel stayed in the east to keep Clueless' advanced horse in check, and Macura partially blockaded Clueless' elephant while also creating goal threats. Clueless' other horse soon came east, however, and Clueless overloaded Macura with a strong attack on f6. In Macura's second game, each side got a strong trap attack, and each elephant was forced to defend its own home trap. As in the first game, Clueless got up by two rabbits, but this time a goal threat helped Macura pull ahead and establish an insurmountable lead. In his third game, Macura's attacking horse was framed; the frame was repeatedly broken and reestablished, and eventually led to a dog exchange. Macura then went down by a rabbit, but was very strong in the east, and eventually expanded this strength to the west also.

Omar Syed filled in for Daligault's first game. Syed hostaged a horse with his camel, and eventually decimated Clueless on the other wing. Daligault himself got a horse-by-camel hostage in his next game, and eventually captured the other horse. He then took a double hostage, which he soon abandoned to force a goal. In his last game, Daligault gave a horse handicap, which he overcame with yet another horse-by-camel hostage and then an aggressive goal attack.

Despite the improved bot competition, humans finished 7–2.

2010
Mattias Hultgren's Marwin narrowly defeated Clueless in both the Computer Championship and the screening. Marwin thus advanced to the 2010 Challenge to face human defenders Greg Magne, Daniel Scott, and Patrick Dudek.

In his first game, Magne pulled down and briefly framed a rabbit; Marwin's camel freed the rabbit, which then advanced to within two steps of goal. Magne could have captured the camel, but would have then lost the game. Magne soon captured the rabbit instead, and Marwin's camel pushed Magne's horse north. Marwin soon captured the horse, but Magne captured a cat and dog in addition to the rabbit. Marwin eventually took a dog-by-horse hostage in the west, but could not hold it once a supporting rabbit was captured. Magne soon captured the horse also, and then forced a goal. In his second game, Magne advanced both horses in the west and his camel in the east, and dragged both of Marwin's cats homeward. Magne lost his camel but captured a cat, rabbit, and horse. Marwin then used its elephant to block a goal attack in the west, and thus lost another cat and a dog. Magne's elephant then went east, and Marwin cleaned up in the west, but Magne stayed ahead and forced an eastern goal. In his third game, Magne traded his camel for a cat and horse, which is considered a roughly even trade in the opening. Marwin then took a horse-by-elephant hostage, temporarily making its own camel the strongest free piece. However, Magne easily rotated his elephant out of hostage defense and then threatened Marwin's aggressive camel. Marwin's elephant came west to defend it, and Magne had firm control of f6; this led to several captures and then a goal.

In his first game, Scott quickly dragged a cat home for capture. Perhaps aiming to make threats in both eastern traps, Marwin attacked f6 and pushed the camel down. Marwin could have captured the f7 rabbit and threatened a second rabbit capture, but then Scott's camel could have advanced while Marwin's elephant was on f7. Instead, the game continued with Scott up a cat, until he framed a dog in f6 and rotated his elephant out of the frame. Marwin quickly gave up the dog, as there was little chance of freeing it, and the elephant could not afford to stay pinned. This was repeated with a cat frame in c6. Down a dog and two cats, Marwin again attacked f6, but Scott already had control of c3. Scott defended f6 while also making way for a goal. In his second game, Scott gave a dog handicap. Marwin quickly got control of c3; Scott never submitted a 16g, and thus lost on time. In his third game, Scott traded a rabbit for a dog, and then attacked c3. With Scott's camel also threatening a horse in c6, Marwin was overloaded.

In Dudek's first game, Marwin got strong attacks on both c3 and f3. Dudek reasserted control of f3 and nearly made up for the losses in c3, but Marwin forced a goal. In his second game, Dudek framed a dog in c6; Marwin's camel advanced in the center and broke the frame, but Dudek soon captured the camel and a rabbit in exchange for a horse. Dudek again framed a dog in c6, and his camel became the strongest free piece. Marwin had little choice but to abandon the dog, and Dudek had a large material lead, which he continued to build on until his goal on move 74. In his third game, Dudek lost a rabbit and then framed a dog, but eventually had to abandon the frame to deal with an advanced camel. Dudek ended up holding a horse hostage at f3 and a camel hostage at c3, but Marwin managed to capture two more rabbits and then free its elephant, which then broke the horse-by-camel hostage. Dudek regained full control of c3, but Marwin's goal threats could not be overcome. For the first time, a bot won a match against a human defender, though in total it won only three games out of nine.

2011
David Wu's Sharp defeated Marwin in the 2011 Computer Championship. Perhaps by a fluke, Marwin then won the screening; Sharp won more games, but a player's results only counted if both bots had been played. Marwin thus advanced to the Challenge to face Toby Hudson, Karl "Fritz" Juhnke, and Gregory Clark.

In his first game, Hudson advanced a horse in the west, and Marwin advanced its camel in the east. Both were soon captured; Marwin had been too aggressive with its camel. Hudson then advanced his remaining horse in the east. Marwin briefly framed it, but this was a weak frame, as the framing elephant was decentralized and the framing horse was vulnerable to Hudson's camel. Rather than quickly breaking this frame, Hudson attacked c3 and flipped Marwin's western horse toward c6. Needing an active elephant, Marwin gave up the frame. Hudson's formerly framed horse became an attacker, and Marwin's eastern horse was pushed toward f6. Hudson's advanced camel was vulnerable in the west, but could retreat thanks to well-placed friendly pieces. Hudson soon threatened both enemy horses, and captured the eastern one, although Marwin captured a dog in return. A northwestern deadlock left Hudson's horse as the strongest eastern piece, which Hudson capitalized on. Hudson eventually abandoned the west and forced a goal in the east. In his second game, Hudson created threats in both home traps, captured a rabbit, and then got a central camel hostage. Hudson forked the camel, Marwin rescued it, and then Hudson framed a dog; the camel was right next to the frame, but had no space to break it. The camel thus went west, and there was a camel deadlock at one trap and an elephant deadlock next door. Perhaps anticipating that Marwin would ultimately drag pieces home, Hudson gave up the frame. Hudson soon threatened Marwin's camel once again, but Marwin skillfully defended it and used it to help create a goal threat, which cost Hudson several steps. Once captures began, however, Hudson ruled the day. In his third game, Hudson attacked c3 and soon had threats in three traps. Marwin was overloaded, and Hudson got a 29-turn win.

After a bit of lone elephant play at the start of Juhnke's first game, Juhnke advanced piece after piece on both wings. Once Juhnke's elephant went west, Marwin was helpless; its elephant couldn't afford to leave f6, and everything else was blocked. Juhnke made nine unanswered captures before forcing goal. In his second game, Juhnke could have captured a dog on 3s, but his elephant could have then been smothered. Instead, he advanced a horse and then both dogs, and used his camel to pull up an enemy horse. The northeastern horse-by-camel hostage allowed Juhnke to control f3 with dogs. He made several captures there and then forced a goal on move 29. In his third game, Juhnke gave a cat handicap. Exchanges pulled him roughly even, but his elephant ended up defending goal, which allowed Marwin to get ahead; Juhnke was then overloaded.

In Clark's first game, he lost a dog, but captured a rabbit and took a camel hostage. He then attacked c3 and eventually f3, overwhelming Marwin with captures and goal threats. In his second game, Clark quickly advanced a horse, which then got framed. Advanced rabbits, however, allowed his camel to break the frame. Clark then had a strong attack on f6, and actually captured a dog and horse in f3. Clark won on move 37. In his third game, Clark traded a cat for a dog and then attacked f3, creating a goal threat. Marwin's camel and horses all joined this fight; this unbalanced Marwin's forces, which soon owned no trap. Clark dominated from there.

Humanity finished 8–1, a better record than in the previous two years.

2012
In 2012, the Computer Championship switched from triple to quadruple elimination format; the bots would play each other until all but one had four losses. Marwin was the last bot standing, but second-place Briareus won the screening. The Challenge defenders were Hirohumi Takahashi, Eric Momsen, and Jean Daligault.

In his first game, Takahashi attacked f6 using his elephant, camel, and eastern horse. Briareus counterattacked c3 with a camel and horse, but Takahashi replaced his elephant on e6 and moved it to the southwest. Briareus soon held a double hostage which Takahashi defended without his elephant; Takahashi's forces were quite unbalanced, but he had the only free elephant. Takahashi captured the intruding horse, but Briareus' camel returned home and joined the northeastern fight. Takahashi's elephant, however, prevented any substantial loss there until pieces were traded. With Briareus' horses gone, its camel was useless, and Takahashi expanded his material lead before forcing goal. Takahashi began his second game with another EMH attack, and advanced more pieces behind it. Takahashi's camel alternated between furthering the trap attack and dragging pieces home for capture. Eventually, Takahashi took firm control in the west while retaining a potential goal threat in the east, and Briareus was overloaded. In his third game, Takahashi gave a cat handicap and also set up with seven rabbits in front. Briareus did nothing with this advantage, and Takahashi made seven unanswered captures before forcing goal.

In his first game, Daligault quickly attacked both enemy traps, and then retreated in the west but became strong in the east. Each time Daligault made a capture in f6, Briareus had to move another piece east to block goal, which was unsustainable for Briareus. In his second game, Daligault attacked c3 and once again advanced rabbits to strengthen the attack. Briareus' elephant couldn't afford to leave the west, and Daligault's elephant stood ready to stop any eastern counterattack, so Briareus had few options. Daligault began the third game much like he began the first two, but this time captured Briareus' counterattacking camel, making way for a quick second attack. Briareus was once again overloaded.

In Momsen's first game, he captured a rabbit and did an EMH attack on c3. Briareus advanced its camel and threatened a horse, which led to a camel exchange. Momsen again attacked c3, and Briareus took a horse-by-elephant hostage behind the trap. With a flip and a pull, Momsen cleared space and then nearly forced a western goal, but Briareus beat him to it via a sneaky attack on c6. In his second game, Momsen created goal threats across the board, but Briareus eventually got rabbits through and won in 93 moves. In his third game, Momsen captured both enemy horses, but could not overcome Briareus' eastern attacks. For the first time, a human defender was swept, although humans had still won six out of nine games.

2013
Ricardo Barreira's Ziltoid won the 2013 Computer Championship, but Marwin won the screening, and thus faced human defenders Matthew Craven, Mathew Brown, and Greg Magne.

In Magne's first game, he successfully attacked c3 and captured the counterattacking horse in c6. Defending goal was costly for Marwin, although it did take Magne 71 turns to win. In his second game, Magne's northeastern attack was punished, but the northwest was left thin, and Magne soon forced goal. Playing with a cat handicap in his third game, Magne attacked c3 and flipped a horse to unbalance Marwin's army. Marwin could then do little on either wing; Marwin's elephant had to defend c3, and Magne's elephant and camel neutralized Marwin's eastern strength. Magne eventually framed a dog in c3, captured a horse in f6, cleaned up in f3, and forced a goal. Marwin likely missed early opportunities to improve its position, taking one-step turns on 8g and 11g.

In Craven's first game, Marwin quickly attacked both traps and decisively won a large material exchange, which allowed for a goal in 34 turns. In Craven's second game, each side quickly attacked a trap, and once again there were many captures. Marwin came out somewhat ahead, but Craven had the only remaining camel. Marwin made further progress, but Craven's elephant and camel eventually forced a goal in the west. In his third game, Craven lost his camel in an exchange, but eventually took Marwin's camel hostage and then forced a goal.

In his first game, Brown traded a dog for a horse. Marwin's remaining horse and camel were in the west, so Brown's remaining dog became a strong attacker in the east. Rabbits advanced to support this attack, and Marwin's elephant was forced to defend there while Brown's camel attacked in the west. Marwin's elephant eventually stood on the eastern flank to block goal, and could not even defend f6 as pieces were captured therein. Brown eventually forced a goal in the west. Brown began his second game with an EMH attack on c3. Marwin countered with an EM attack on f6; this led to a race, which Brown won because of his goal threat. In his third game, Brown gave a horse handicap, but nonetheless got a strong attack on f6 and soon pulled even in material. His goal threats eventually stretched Marwin thin.

Humanity finished 8–1, appearing as strong as ever.

2014
Sharp won the 2014 Computer Championship somewhat decisively, having lost only two games by the time all other bots had lost four. As in 2011, however, the screening did not go Sharp's way, and second-place Ziltoid advanced to the Challenge. The human defenders were Max Manual, Karl "Fritz" Juhnke, and Samuel Schueler.

In Manual's first game, Ziltoid appeared quite strong in the west, capturing two rabbits at home while also forcing Manual to defend goal. Manual, however, regained control of c6 and narrowed the rabbit gap. The game proceeded slowly, but Manual became increasingly strong across the board, and won in 80 turns. Manual got off to a strong start in his second game, framing a horse which Ziltoid quickly abandoned. However, Manual soon lost a dog which he had left exposed in the center. Manual then advanced both horses in the west, where Ziltoid's camel was ready for them. While the northwest was congested, Ziltoid became strong in the east, and Manual could not recover. In his third game, Manual again got a horse basket, a fence, and then a frame. Ziltoid again abandoned the horse and captured a dog, but Manual also captured a cat and a rabbit. Manual soon attacked both c3 and f3, and Ziltoid could do nothing.

Juhnke's first game proceeded slowly, but Juhnke made progress by pulling rabbits, and won in 83 turns. In his second game, Juhnke advanced on both wings, but lost a dog for a rabbit. Both elephants and camels became tied down in a congested northwest, and the four horses fought in the east. Ziltoid unfroze its camel, but in doing so allowed Juhnke to unfreeze his camel and get control of both northern traps. Juhnke soon captured Ziltoid's camel and forced a goal. In his third game, Juhnke took a horse-by-camel hostage, which Ziltoid abandoned. Juhnke then appeared to be well ahead, although he soon also lost a horse. Juhnke advanced on both wings, and eventually overwhelmed Ziltoid.

In his first game, Schueler dragged down a rabbit for capture, and then attacked in the east while Ziltoid attacked in the west. Schueler lost a dog, but took a camel hostage while remaining strong in the east. Ziltoid abandoned the camel but captured another dog. Schueler continued to attack in the east, while Ziltoid again attacked in the west. More material was eventually traded, and Schueler forced a goal. In Schueler's second game, homeward pulling got him up three rabbits to a cat. He could thus afford to trade his hostaged camel for a horse. He then got a strong attack in the southeast, and Ziltoid scrambled to block goal. Schueler then forced goal in the west. In the third game, Schueler attacked in the west and Ziltoid attacked in the east. Schueler's home defense was soon quite thin, and his camel got stuck defending goal. Schueler hurt himself by pulling a rabbit, although that rabbit was a threat anyway. Ziltoid soon cleaned up, and Schueler gave up on the game.

Humans finished 7–2. This marked eleven straight years in which humans had dominated the Challenge, winning many more games than necessary.

2015
With the hardware substantially upgraded, Omar Syed played it fairly safe, tapping the previous year's World Champion Jean Daligault and runner-up Mathew Brown as 2015 Challenge defenders. Still wanting to include a new defender, Syed tapped Lev Ruchka as the third.

In the 2015 Computer Championship, David Wu's Sharp went undefeated; this was the first bot shutout since 2007. Sharp went 28-2 in the screening, easily topping the second-place bot in test-games against humans. The community combed these games for weaknesses; while Sharp occasionally chose a questionable move, no clear anti-Sharp strategy emerged in time for the Challenge. Given Sharp's quantum leap, the Challenge was now in real question; even if a human defender upheld it in 2015, there were still four more years to go.

Daligault went first. His 9g left his eastern dog exposed. The threat to the dog ultimately led Daligault to move his elephant east. Sharp moved its camel west, threatening the advanced horse. Daligault threatened a rabbit in c3 and a horse in f3, but Sharp moved the rabbit to the middle and threatened goal. Sharp soon had a strong frame-hostage which gave Sharp two free horses to Daligault's one. These horses soon attacked c3 and forced goal.

After 13s, Daligault could have moved his elephant to d6 and thus kept Sharp's camel in the east. Daligault didn't need to shield his own camel behind Sharp's rabbit; with a friendly horse advanced on the a-file, a camel hostage would be unlikely even if the camel were pulled toward c6. If Sharp threatened a dog or horse in f6, Daligault might have stepped his elephant east and perhaps even moved his camel east.

Exploiting Sharp's homeward pulls, Ruchka got a quick EMH attack followed by a swarm which blockaded Sharp's elephant and eastern horse. Sharp eventually counterattacked in the west, and threatened to capture a horse in c6 due to false protection. Ruchka could not afford to immediately move his elephant to c5 or d6, but did move it to d5 while using his fourth step to block the e2 dog from e4. Sharp could have captured a horse on 15g, but Ruchka's home rabbits ensured that any such capture would hang Sharp's horse on d6 or its camel on b6. Sharp declined such a trade, moving its camel and horse away from the trap and also moving its e2 dog to the crucial e3 square, which Ruchka had not secured; Ruchka's f3 dog had to stay in place to block an enemy dog advance, and Ruchka's other dog did not quite reach e3 in time. Ruchka's position remained fairly strong; although Sharp held g3, f2, and e3, its pieces were blocked in. As long as Ruchka's pinned cat could hold f4, the blockade would remain intact. On 18s, Ruchka could have better protected that cat by simply stepping the e6 horse to e5; there was no need to go after the e3 dog, and this strategy ultimately backfired on Ruchka, as it cleared space in the southeast and gave Sharp an additional attacker in the northwest. On 30s, Ruchka had to defend goal, but could have done so by pushing Sharp's camel to e3, which would have also protected the f4 cat. Ruchka instead blocked the goal path and captured a horse, but lost a dog, rabbit, and cat in f3 before his elephant could defend that trap, where his camel was still held hostage. Sharp's eastern horse was no longer blocked in, and its camel was now the strongest free piece. With support in the west, Sharp's camel soon captured a horse and finished the turn safely on c3. Sharp then brought its own horse west and forced a goal.

While the southeastern blockade could have worked for Ruchka even with Sharp occupying e3, Ruchka did have a chance to secure that square early on, by advancing his second dog prior to 13g. Ruchka may have feared that the dog might then be threatened in c3, but his elephant likely could have kept things under control, considering that Sharp only had two free pieces which could threaten a dog. By 14s, the situation had changed; 14s ee3nw de5ss would have left Ruchka's elephant too far away to mitigate the likely horse capture in c6, so Sharp could have taken a large material lead and advanced more pieces in the west. While Ruchka's elephant would have been the strongest local piece, it might have gotten stuck defending goal.

Brown started slowly, but had substantial development on both wings after twenty turns. In that time, he took four two-step turns, and made only one homeward pull. When Brown's camel was threatened in c6 and could not retreat, Brown attacked c6, which Sharp then blockaded with a cat. With Sharp's elephant marginalized and its camel passive, Brown defended all four traps and occupied three of the four central squares. On four turns in a row, Sharp pulled a rabbit from d5 to e5, perhaps to temporarily freeze the c5 horse so that it couldn't pull the c6 cat to c4. Brown eventually left his rabbit on e5 and flipped Sharp's h-file rabbit, opening a possible goal path; Brown then pushed the rabbit to g4, blocking Sharp's horse from that square. Brown then pulled the c6 cat home and captured it in c3, while also backing his eastern horse away from a capture threat in f6. With Sharp's camel now in the east, Brown did his best to rotate his elephant out of hostage defense, swarming c6 and placing a rabbit in that trap. Brown played an unnecessary split capture on 40g, advancing his cat and moving his elephant south to threaten a horse. This capture threat was weakened by Sharp's 40s rabbit advance; Brown could still capture the horse, but his elephant would have to finish on g3, which would give Sharp time to clean up. Brown thus declined the capture on 41g, and used three steps which he wouldn't have needed had he simply flip-captured the rabbit on 40g. The lost time was critical, due to Brown's precarious defense of c6, in which his camel was soon lost. Brown had strong goal threats, however. He moved his horse back to c5 on 46g, perhaps thinking that it could go west before Sharp would have time to capture it. Brown became focused on the east, however, and left that horse on c5. On 51s, Sharp needed only one step to block a goal, leaving three steps to capture the horse. Out a camel and horse while having captured only weak pieces, Brown couldn't recover. Sharp had swept the first round, and one of the defenders would have to win his next two games if the Challenge was to survive 2015.

In his second game, Daligault quickly moved toward an attack on f3, which was defended by Sharp's camel. Sharp advanced a rabbit on the h-file, and Daligault pushed it back rather than pulling it toward f6. However, Daligault left a dog next to Sharp's elephant, which then flipped it into the center; from there, Sharp made several threats in c3 and f3. Daligault eventually lost a cat and a dog, while capturing a dog himself. Daligault then attacked both f3 and c3, but his attacking camel was framed and captured. Daligault's goal threats kept things interesting, but his own home defense became thin, and Sharp won the goal race.

After losing a rabbit which had advanced to unfreeze a horse, Ruchka went after Sharp's western horse with his camel. Sharp took a high camel hostage, placing the horse on b4 to keep the camel frozen. This hostage did not give Sharp an immediate advantage, as Sharp's own camel was initially stuck behind the hostage, and Sharp had only one free horse; even Sharp's elephant was highly restricted, as the stabilizing horse faced immediate capture in c3 if Ruchka's camel became active. A three-for-three repetition fight occurred from 21s to 25s; Ruchka eventually pulled a rabbit in the middle instead of moving his dog back to d4. Ruchka soon captured the rabbit, and Sharp's camel made its way to the southeast. Ruchka took advantage of this, moving his horse and dog to the northwest and rotating his elephant out of hostage defense. After losing a rabbit, cat, and dog in the east, Ruchka captured a rabbit and then the camel. However, Sharp then flipped the c6 dog to e6, threatening not only the dog but also Ruchka's horse and camel. Ruchka temporarily defended all three pieces, but Sharp activated its western horse, creating a goal threat which allowed Sharp to clean house. Once Ruchka freed his elephant and neutralized Sharp's camel, he may have then captured the camel a bit too quickly. His cat could have first stepped forward to delay a dog flip, and his horse could have advanced to create eastern threats but also to support the dog in the event it were pulled east. Keeping his western defense intact while also moving toward an eastern goal threat might have allowed Ruchka to win a race.

It was all up to Brown, who would now have to win twice if the Challenge was to stand. Brown attacked c3, but Sharp's camel came west to defend. Sharp soon framed a dog in c3, but abandoned that frame to attack f6. That EHH attack was strong enough that Brown opted to blockade f6 rather than threaten Sharp's camel in c6. Brown was overloaded, and could not stop captures in f3. Sharp won the Arimaa Challenge, after no bot had come close for eleven years.

The third round was still played; Daligault and Brown each got a win, perhaps having adapted to the bot. It would have been harder for a bot to win the Challenge had the defenders been allowed to practice against it in advance. Until the Challenge games, the defenders could only observe how the bot had played in the Computer Championship and the screening.

title: Arimaa/Arimaa Challenge History


text:
Category:Subject:Linguistics

fr:Catégorie:Linguistique ko:분류:언어학 uk:Категорія:Мовознавство

title: Category:Subject:Linguistics


text: Category:Book:Literary Criticism

title: Category:Book:Literary Criticism


text:
Category:Book:Lojban

ja:Category:ロジバン

title: Category:Book:Lojban


text:
Introduction to Astrophysics/Stars/Hertzsprung-Russell

The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (usually referred to by the abbreviation H-R diagram or HRD, also known as a Colour-Magnitude (CM) diagram) shows the relationship between absolute magnitude, luminosity, stellar classification, and surface temperature of stars. The diagram was created circa 1910 by Ejnar Hertzsprung and Henry Norris Russell, and represented a huge leap forward in understanding stellar evolution, or the 'lives of stars'.

Interpretation

There are two equivalent forms. One is the observer's form which plots the color index of the star on one axis and the absolute magnitude on the other axis. These two quantities can be derived from observations. The theoretician's form plots the temperature of the star on one axis and the luminosity of the star on the other. These two quantities can be calculated from computer models.

The exact transformation from one to the other is not trivial, and depends on the model being used and their parameters (like age and composition). See Sekiguchi and Fukugita, for example, for a transformation between B-V color index and temperature.

The H-R diagram is used to define different types of stars and to match theoretical predictions of stellar evolution using computer models with observations of actual stars.

Most of the stars occupy the region along the line called main sequence. During that stage stars are burning hydrogen. Next concentration of stars is on horizontal branch (helium fusion in the core and hydrogen burning in a shell surrounding the core). Another prominent feature is Hertzsprung gap located in the region between A5 and G0 spectral type and between +1 and -3 absolute magnitudes (i.e. between the top of main sequence and the giant stars in the horizontal branch). RR Lyrae stars can be found in the left of this gap. Hertzsprung gap is a subset of instability strip. In the upper section of instability strip Cepheid variables are residing.

The H-R diagram is also used by scientists to help the figure out roughly how far away the stars are from Earth. This can be done if we know the apparent magnitude we can plot the star onto the graph using its spectral class and the type of star it is. We can then use the graph to deduce the absolute magnitude of the star.


text: Category:Book:Lucid Dreaming

title: Category:Book:Lucid Dreaming


text:
Category:Book:MATLAB Programming

fr:Catégorie:Découvrir Matlab (livre)

title: Category:Book:MATLAB Programming


text: Category:Book:Mac OS X Tiger

title: Category:Book:Mac OS X Tiger


text:
User:Kwkak37

Hi, I'm Kevin. I am 14, living in New Jersey, United States. My first contributions will be given to the Diplomacy wikibook, then start some of my own.

Kevin

title: User:Kwkak37


text:
User:Kb1990~enwikibooks

I just signed up for the harry potter section really lol here to help

title: User:Kb1990~enwikibooks


text:
User talk:Kb1990~enwikibooks

I signed up for the harry potter thing really but helo all

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Kb1990. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kb1990~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kb1990~enwikibooks


text:
Cookbook:Tamil Spice Mix (Milagai Podi)

| Indian Cuisine

Milagai podi is a mixture of crushed spices used as a condiment in Tamil cuisine. The mixture can be used dry or mixed with ghee or oil. It's great served with hot idlis or dosais.

Ingredients

 * 2 spoons red chile powder
 * 1 pinch salt
 * 1 pinch ground turmeric
 * 3 garlic cloves, crushed
 * 3 spoons ghee, melted

Procedure

 * 1) Mix all ingredients
 * 2) Let sit 3 minutes.

title: Cookbook:Tamil Spice Mix (Milagai Podi)


text:
Cookbook talk:Tamil Spice Mix (Milagai Podi)

Please advise on size of spoons to be used when measuring 83.67.33.18 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


text:
Template:English in Use/Navigation

Usage
See English in Use/About for usage information and examples.

Note that subpage links may be red here, but will not necessarily be redlinks on the English pages (or English subpages?).

title: Template:English in Use/Navigation


text:
Template:PDF

This template creates a link to both a book's title page and its accompanying PDF file. Type to use this template.

Example: produces:

To provide a custom location for a PDF file, use.

title: Template:PDF


text:
User talk:Mr. C.C.

Company's Coming
Hello, Fishhead, and welcome to Wikibooks! You can link to Wikipedia article by typing Article title For example: Company's Coming. You shouldn't copy articles unless you plan to use them as a base for writing a textbook. Thanks for your work on the cookbook, hagindaz 23:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mr. C.C.


text:
Cookbook:Medu Vada (South Indian Savory Lentil Donut)

| Indian Cuisine

A vada is a savoury South Indian doughnut made from lentils (or sometimes potatoes). This is a recipe for medu vada. It is commonly accompanied by idli.

Ingredients

 * 1 cup (240 g) skinless black gram
 * Salt to taste
 * ¼ tsp asafoetida
 * 8–10 curry leaves
 * 1 tsp cumin powder
 * 1 tsp crushed black peppercorns
 * Oil to fry

Procedure

 * 1) Wash and soak urad dal for 6 hours. Grind into a fine paste.
 * 2) Add salt, asafoetida, curry leaves, cumin powder, and crushed peppercorns to the batter and mix well.
 * 3) Heat oil in a kadai.
 * 4) Wet your palms and take batter into the palms.
 * 5) Shape into balls and make a hole with the thumb in the centre like a doughnut.
 * 6) Deep-fry this in medium-hot oil until golden brown and crisp.
 * 7) Serve hot with sambhar and coconut chutney.


text:
How to Use Rhino Mocks

Rhino Mocks is a mock object framework for the .NET platform. It is freely available from Ayende Rahien.

Table of Contents
/Introduction/

/Out and Ref Parameters/

/Testing Events/

/Debugging Exceptions/

/Mocks, Dynamic Mocks, Partial Mocks/

title: How to Use Rhino Mocks


text:
How to Use Rhino Mocks/Introduction

Basic Usage
1. Create a mock repository:

2. Add a mock object to the repository:

If you're using C# 2.0, you may use the generic version and avoid upcasting:

3. "Record" the methods that you expect to be called on the mock object:

Note that the parameter values provided in these calls represent those values we expect our mock to be called with. Similarly, the return value represents the value that the mock will return when this method is called.

You may expect a method to be called multiple times:

4. Set the mock object to a "Replay" state where, as called, it will replay the operations just recorded.

5. Invoke code that uses the mock object.

6. Check that all calls were made to the mock object.

title: How to Use Rhino Mocks/Introduction


text:
Cookbook talk:Meat Recipes

Caption
It seemed pretty obvious that in the picture was different types of meat, so I removed the caption. I just thought it sounded a bit awkward. Thhhh (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
Good day to everyone... I am searching for an article on different cuts of meat. Such as flank, brisket, shin, etcetera... can't find it...

paul.farol@gmail.com

Hmm...
No bacon recipes? (I mean dishes that use bacon, not how bacon is made)TrumpyNZ 04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Eat a Pet Cookbook
Do you think any of the recipes from the Eat a Pet Cookbook (ISBN 0-88166-167-8) should be included? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 23:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

title: Cookbook talk:Meat Recipes


text:
English in Use/Introduction

Welcome
Welcome to the English language Wikibook on the English language!

To learn about chapter format and whether this is the right book for you, continue reading this page. Most of this material is not dependent on other sections, so you can also use this book as a reference by clicking on any subject you would like to learn more about on the contents page. If you don't want to bother looking through chapters for a specific piece of information, click here to ask a question on any subject covered in this book. To learn more about this book and view a list of authors, see the ../About/ page.

Additionally, those knowledgeable about the English language are welcome and highly encouraged to contribute. See the ../About/ page to learn more about contributing and add your name to the authors listing.

Introduction to the English language
English has become one of the most popular languages in the world. Proper English skills are becoming a valuable asset in business around the world. Do not put off learning English because of the great variety of word orders available (even for simple things). Have a go and keep trying. Practice.

It is well worth remembering that English is not a fixed language - it is shifting like sand and so these "rules" are in the process of change and are often ignored or bent - much to the disdain of erudite scholars. This may be one reason why English can be tricky to learn.

Purpose and structure - What will this book cover?
This book will function as: It is divided into six units: Words and usage, Sentences, Punctuation, Other key topics, Appendices, and Topics in detail. The eventual goal is to be usable in English classrooms around the world. This book will not include English vocabulary and pronunciation (covered in English as an Additional Language). Advanced writing topics (covered in ) will also be excluded.
 * 1) A guide to structure and grammar,
 * 2) A usage guide, and
 * 3) A manual of style

Intended audience - Who is this book for?
This book is written for native English speakers and those who wish to learn the finer grammar and mechanics points of the language and improve their writing and speech, including ESL speakers. It is meant to be both a structured textbook read chapter by chapter and a reference book. English as an Additional Language and Business English present English in the manner of a traditional foreign language course. covers advanced writing techniques not covered in this book. See /External resources for other pages to read.

Chapter format
All pages of this book should be about the same length and difficulty, in order to provide consistency and allow readers to plan ahead how much they want to read each session. Each chapter will try to not be dependent on previous chapters as much as possible. Each chapter should be accompanied by exercises using English/Exercise.

Contributing - What can I do to help?
Both experts and beginners can help to improve this book. If you would like to help, the about page should tell you everything you want to know to help. If you don't have a lot of time to work on this book, there are two simple things you can do. Firstly, you can make sure that English/Navigation is on every page. Type </nowiki> on the bottom of the page to include the template. Secondly, you are encouraged to comment on each chapter on its talk page. Don't understand something? Please say so so others don't experience the same problem! If you feel you understand the material on a page pretty well, write some exercises as practice. Be bold!

Brief language history
Modern English has evolved out of old Anglo-Saxon, a language much like modern German. In the process, it has borrowed many Latin words, and completely changed its grammar.

The story starts when the Romans left Britain, leaving the Celtic Britons in chaos. One Celtic king asked the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes to come and fight for him, but they decided to take over England instead, since the Celts couldn't put up a decent fight.

Soon, there were no Celts left in England, and hardly any trace of the Celtic languages. There are a few river names inherited from the Celts, or earlier, and maybe a dozen words, but no more. This complete obliteration of the Celts was unusually thorough for the times.

A few generations later the English converted to Christianity. The new religion brought with it a flood of new words, borrowed from Latin and Greek; religious terms such as Angel, priest, and nun, but also names of un-English things such lion, pepper, and oyster.

Around this time, the English began slurring the ends of words. This was the start of the process that created modern English grammar.

After a few centuries of peace the Vikings invaded. They spoke Old Norse, a language related to English. After much fighting, they settled down in North East England, and introduced many Norse words into English, including the pronouns them, they, and their.

Just as the Viking invasions stopped, the French-speaking Normans invaded. Commoners continued speaking English, but for the next two centuries the noblemen spoke French.

A few French words trickled into English during the period, but the number stayed pretty low until the nobles stopped speaking French, in the mid thirteenth century. This precipitated a large influx of words of French origin into the English language as an entire class migrated from French to English. Many of the French words were Anglicized, but some of the spelling of the words remained roughly intact. It should be noted that the Normans spoke an older version of French known as Old French that may sometimes actually seem to be closer to English than current French, because English took some words from Old French wholesale, such as mansion. Around the same time the universities of Oxford and Cambridge were founded.

During the Renaissance, the scholars of England added many more Greek and Latin words to the English language. As a result, much of the technical vocabulary in English consists of Greek or Latin words.

Since then, English has also borrowed many words from the major European languages, such as French, as well as a few words from almost every other language. It is still changing and developing.

अंग्रेज़ी भाषा/परिचय

title: English in Use/Introduction


text:
English in Use/About

Authors

 * If you have contributed to this book, add your name here.

User:Xania - I've edited and created sections for phrasal verbs, articles, capitalization and adjectives.

User:Tkorrovi - I copied the initial text here from Goold Brown's public domain grammar.

Contributing
Both experts and beginners can help to improve this book. If you would like to help, the about page should tell you everything you want to know to help. If you don't have a lot of time to work on this book, there are two simple things you can do. Firstly, you can make sure that English in Use/Navigation is on every page. Type on the bottom of the page to include the template. Secondly, you are encouraged to comment on each chapter on its talk page. Don't understand something? Please say so so others don't experience the same problem! If you feel you understand the material on a page pretty well, write some exercises as practice. Be bold!

English in Use/Navigation
This template should be added to the bottom of each English in Use page by typing:

The five unit names are: Words and usage, Sentences, Punctuation, Other key topics, Appendices and a blank space for all other pages.

Example: To see what this code yields, go to English in Use/Verbs.

English in Use/Exercise
Format:

title: English in Use/About


text:
Practical Electronics/IC/4081

The 4081 is a member of the 4000 Series CMOS range, and contains four independent CMOS AND gates, each with two inputs. The pinout diagram, given on the right, is the standard two-input logic gate IC layout:

 * Pin 7 is the negative supply
 * Pin 14 is the positive supply
 * Pins 1&2, 5&6, 8&9, 12&13 are gate inputs
 * Pins 3, 4, 10, 11 are gate outputs

The truth table for one of the four gates is shown to the right. For more information about the AND gate in general, see this module. The arrangement of the CMOS components is shown below:

This chip is widely available, and usually comes in a DIL-14 or SOIC-14 package.

This chip is different in pinout to the TTL 7408 and 7409, but can fulfill the function of either if the wiring is modified.

Alternative Construction
If a 4081 is not available, there are several ways to achieve an AND gate. The first is to use a NAND gate and invert the output. This can be done with a NOT gate or another NAND gate. The first method with require two ICs to implement, but a total of four gates can be made. The second will require only one IC, but only two gates can be made. Incidentally, due to the nature of CMOS devices, this gate actually produces the AND function by inverting the output of a NAND gate (see above).

NOR gates can also be used in the configuration below to make an AND gate.

Similar ICs
As well as the standard 2-Input AND Gate, 3-, 4- and 8-Input AND Gates are also available:

 * 4073: Triple 3-Input AND Gate
 * 4082: Dual 4-Input AND Gate
 * An 8-Input NAND Gate exists (4068), and this is easily made into an 8-Input AND gate by inversion of the output. Some models of this IC have an onboard NOT gate or an inverted output for this purpose.

AND gates with more inputs can be made up from the 4081 or any of the above ICs by cascading them together. This is discussed on this page.

Datasheets
These are available from manufacturers. A selection of different manufacturers' datasheets is given below:

 * Philips Semiconductor
 * Fairchild Semiconductor
 * ON Semiconductor
 * Texas Instruments

title: Practical Electronics/IC/4081


text:
Practical Electronics/IC/4071

The 4071 is a member of the 4000 Series CMOS range, and contains four independent CMOS OR gates, each with two inputs. The pinout diagram, given on the right, is the standard two-input CMOS logic gate IC layout:

 * Pin 7 is the negative supply
 * Pin 14 is the positive supply
 * Pins 1&2, 5&6, 8&9, 12&13 are gate inputs
 * Pins 3, 4, 10, 11 are gate outputs

The truth table for one of the four gates is shown to the right. For more information about the OR gate in general, see this module. The arrangement of the CMOS components is shown below:

This chip is widely available, and usually comes in a DIL-14 or SOIC-14 package.

This chip is different in pinout to the TTL 7432, but can fulfill the function of its counterpart if the wiring is modified.

Alternative Construction
If a 4071 is not available, there are several ways to achieve an OR gate. The first is to use a NOR gate and invert the output. This can be done with a NOT gate or another NOR gate. The first method will require two ICs to implement, but a total of four gates can be made. The second will require only one IC, but only two gates can be made. Incidentally, due to the nature of CMOS devices, this gate actually produces the OR function by inverting the output of a NOR gate (see above).

NAND gates can also be used in the configuration below to make an OR gate.

Similar ICs
As well as the standard 2-Input OR Gate, 3-, 4- and 8-Input OR Gates are also available:

 * 4075: Triple 3-Input OR Gate
 * 4072: Dual 4-Input OR Gate

OR gates with more inputs can be made up from the 4071 or any of the above ICs by cascading them together. This is discussed on this page.

Datasheets
These are available from manufacturers. A selection of different manufacturers' datasheets is given below:

 * Philips Semiconductor
 * Fairchild Semiconductor
 * ON Semiconductor
 * Texas Instruments

title: Practical Electronics/IC/4071


text:
Portuguese Grammar/Article

There are eight words for the articles in Portuguese. They may be Definite or Idefinite, Masculine or Feminine and Singular or Plural.

Definite article
The definite articles o, a, os, as correspond to the English definite article the.

Indefinite article
The indefinite articles um, uma, uns, umas correspond to the English indefinite article a an. The singular set um, uma are also the Portuguese words for the numeral one.

title: Portuguese Grammar/Article


text:
How to Use Rhino Mocks/Out and Ref Parameters

Both out and ref parameters are supported.

At the end of the Expect statement, add .OutRef(outOrRefParam0, outOrRefParam1,...) as shown below.

Or, if you are using lambda-style expectations:

The variables/objects in OutRef have the same order as for the method call, ignoring any parameters that are not out or ref.


text:
Measure Theory/Basic Structures And Definitions

In this chapter, we will introduce the basic ideas of Borel sets, measure spaces, measures and measurable functions.

Conventions
In the following section we use the convention that $$\,X$$ is a set and $$\mathcal{P}(X)$$ is its power set.

Usually if $$\mathcal{C}$$ is a subset of $$\mathcal{P}(X)$$ it'll be referred as class.

Sections

 * 1.1 Semialgebras, Algebras and σ-algebras
 * 1.2 Measures
 * 1.3 Measurable Functions


text:
Jeep Liberty

 * /Authors/
 * /History/
 * /Factory Options/

Suspension

 * /Suspension/

Drivetrain

 * /Engines/
 * /Transmissions/
 * /Transfer Cases/
 * /Tires & Rims/
 * /Performance/

Axles

 * /Dana 30a/
 * /Chrysler 8.25"/
 * /Dana 35C/
 * /Gearing/
 * /Limited Slips/
 * /Lockers/

Misc

 * /Accessories/
 * /Armor/
 * /Electrical/
 * /Equipment/
 * /Recovery/
 * /Torque Specs & Socket Sizes/
 * /Fluid Capacities & Intervals/

Appendices

 * /Abbreviations & Terms/
 * /Resources/

title: Jeep Liberty


text:
Jeep Liberty/Resources

This page contains a collection of links that the authors of this WikiBook have found to be useful for further information about the Jeep Liberty. Much of our own knowledge came from these sources, therefore we'd like to acknowledge them here and pass on their usefulness to the reader.

Information

 * L.O.S.T. KJ
 * Jeep KJ Country

Parts

 * AutoTruckToys.com - Jeep Liberty Accessories and Jeep Liberty Parts
 * Drivewire.com - Jeep Liberty Parts Catalog
 * Junk Yard Dog - Used Auto Parts Junkyard Search
 * Just For Jeeps - Mopar Jeep Accessories and Jeep Parts
 * Mopar - Original Equipment Parts and Accessories
 * NewMoparParts.com - New Original Equipment Parts
 * PartsTrain.com - Hard to Find Auto Parts and Truck Parts
 * CarId.com - Automotive Aftermarket Accessories
 * Savage Jeep Parts - Original Equipment Parts
 * Troy's KJ Links and Parts
 * World Parts Express - New OEM Parts
 * Car Parts and Accessories - Info to buy and find the cheapest components

 * Thread on L.O.S.T. listing even more places to buy parts

title: Jeep Liberty/Resources


text:
Jeep Liberty/Electrical

 * /Auxiliary Lights/
 * /Batteries/
 * /CB Radio/
 * /ESP/
 * /Head Units/
 * /Firewall Penetration/
 * /Overhead Consoles/
 * /PCI Bus/
 * /Satellite Radios/

title: Jeep Liberty/Electrical


text:
Jeep Liberty/Electrical/CB Radio

Antenna
The most popular mobile CB antenna electrical lengths are 1/4 and 5/8 wave. The best practical mobile antenna is the 102" steel whip as it's electrically closest in length to 1/4 of the CB wavelength. According to FireStik, a popular mobile CB antenna manufacturer, the antenna cable between the atenna and the radio should be exactly 18' long for optimum performance.  Using coax with a dense shield and twisted center ensures the least loss and least susceptibility to interference.  The short length of mobile CB atennas makes a proper ground plane very important.  For optimum radiation pattern and efficiency the antenna should be mounted in the center of the Liberty's roof.  If the antenna can't be mounted on the Jeep's roof, at least 60% of it should clear the roof.  Remember that when mounting the antenna near the edge of the Jeep like the front or the back that the radiation pattern will be most focused in the direction of the mass of the vehicle.  If at all possible try using top loaded antennas followed by middle and then bottom loaded.

Popular Mounting Locations
Most people mount a fiberglass antenna to either the rear spare tire mount or the front left hood lip. Other possible mounting locations include roof, the roof basket if equipped, the tail light seam, the factory AM/FM antenna bracket, and the front bull bar if equipped. As noted previously, the best locations are those closer to the center and top of the Liberty. If you don't want to permanently install a bracket on your Liberty you can use a temporary magnetic mount just when you're off-roading.

 * /Original CB Antenna Installation/ (replaces AM/FM antenna)
 * /Upgraded CB Antenna Installation/ (replaces AM/FM antenna)

Permanent

 * Cobra 75 WX ST - a popular all-in-one handset radio that numerous people have installed in their Libertys

Handheld

 * Cobra 38 WX ST - Cobra's equivalent to the Midland 75-822, only it can't be snapped into a car harness, doesn't have channel memories, and supports VOX

Hybrid

 * Midland 75-822 - similar to the Cobra 75 WX ST in form, only it can be snapped off of the car harness and onto a battery pack to become a portable handheld CB radio

title: Jeep Liberty/Electrical/CB Radio


text:
User:Salvor

Testing.....Testing... I am trying to learn to use and design templates in wikibooks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interwikimedia_link

 * Rjúpa
 * Höfuðborg Íslands
 * Æðarfugl
 * Æður
 * Knitting
 * is:Básendaflóðið

Now I am testing
 * Líf í opnu hafi
 * Main Page
 * commons:category:Maps of Iceland

Template:Border Template:Chess diagram Template:Education bookshelf Template:Featured recipe Template:French Lessons

 Education  G ENERAL T OPICS  - USMLE Step One Review - Instructional Technology - Design and Analysis of Advanced Instructional Technologies - Blended Learning in K-12 - Classroom Behavior Management (edit template) All Education books... ==

French :  Print Versions • Lexíur • Málfræði • Eftirmæli • Textar • Um • Spurt og svarað • Áætlanir
 * align="left"|
 * width=10px|
 * align="center"|
 * width=10px|
 * align="right"| (discussion)
 * }

Anyone, including you, can write for ! Just type a title in the box below, click "Create page", and start writing:

title: User:Salvor


text:
Wikijunior:United States Charters of Freedom/Dunlap broadside

The Dunlap Broadsides are the first 150-200 reproduction copies of the ../Declaration of Independence/, printed on the night of July 4, 1776, by John Dunlap of Philadelphia. Unfortunately, the original handwritten copy of the Declaration that Congress sent to Dunlap has been lost. One Dunlap broadside was sent to George Washington on July 6, who had it read to his troops in New York on July 9.

As of 1989, only 24 copies of the Dunlap broadsides were known to exist, until a flea market shopper bought a framed painting for four American dollars. While inspecting a tear in the lining behind the painting, the owner discovered a folded Dunlap broadside.

This 25th copy of the Dunlap broadside was authenticated by Sotheby's and an independent expert. In June 2000, Norman Lear partnered with David Hayden to purchase the document at an online Sotheby's auction. They paid $8.14 million.

Of the 25 surviving copies of the Dunlap broadside, 21 copies belong to universities, historical societies, public libraries and city halls. The remaining four are in private hands, although promised to public collections.

List of copies
The 25 known Dunlap broadside copies listed by location within the United States (or last known location), alphabetically by state, then city; followed by the traveling copy in the United States and two copies in London, United Kingdom.

 * Connecticut, New Haven — Beinecke Library at Yale University
 * District of Columbia, Washington — Library of Congress, Rare Book and Special Collections Division
 * District of Columbia, Washington — Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, Washington Papers — fragment copy with 54 lines; thought to be the copy George Washington read to the troops on July 9, 1776, in New York.
 * District of Columbia, Washington — National Archives — inserted into the Continental Congress manuscript journal, previously attached with a seal
 * Illinois, Chicago — Chicago Historical Society — signed by John Steward (1747-1829) of Goshen, New York; sold July 2, 1975, at auction, by Christie's London; later sold to the Chicago Historical Society
 * Indiana — Bloomington — Lilly Library at Indiana University — previous owner was Henry N. Flynt of Greenwich, Connecticut
 * Maine, Portland — Maine Historical Society — given to the society in 1893 at the bequest of John S. H. Fogg.
 * Maryland, Baltimore — Maryland Historical Society — fragment of upper left area of the document, including the first 36 lines.
 * Massachusetts, Boston — Massachusetts Historical Society
 * Massachusetts, Cambridge — Houghton Library at Harvard University — donated in 1947 by Carleton R. Richmond
 * Massachusetts, Williamstown — Williams College — previously owned by the Wood family; sold at auction, April 22, 1983, by Christie's New York.
 * New Jersey, Princeton — Scheide Library (Scheide Library circa 1959 is a living gift from W. H. "Bill" Scheide to the Fireston Library at Princeton University — currently owned by William H. Scheide; bought by John H. Scheide from A. S. W. Rosenbach
 * New York, New York (last known location) — sold by the New York Historical Society to a private collector in the United States.
 * New York, New York — New York Public Library
 * New York, New York — Morgan Library — once owned by the Chew family; sold April 1, 1982, at auction at Christie's New York.
 * New Hampshire, Exeter — American Independence Museum (created around the document) operated by the New Hampshire Society of the Cincinnati — copy discovered in 1985 in the Ladd-Gilman House in Exeter.
 * Pennsylvania, Philadelphia — American Philosophical Society — acquired from the Library of Congress in 1901 in a trade for Benjamin Franklin's Passy imprint of The Boston Independent Chronicle "Supplement".
 * Pennsylvania, Philadelphia — Historical Society of Pennsylvania — fragment including the first 32 lines; thought to be likely an uncorrected proof; from the Frank M. Ketting collection; Ketting asserted it was this document that had been read in public; however, Charles Henry Hart wrote in 1900: "The endorsement is in the handwriting of the late Frank M. Etting, who died insane, one of the most inexact and inaccurate of collectors."
 * Pennsylvania, Philadelphia — Independence National Historic Park — previously owned by Col. John Nixon, appointed by the sheriff of Philadelphia to read the Declaration of Independence to the public on July 8, 1776, in the State House yard; presented to the park by his heirs in 1951.
 * Texas, Dallas — Dallas Public Library — "The Leary Copy" discovered in 1968 amid the stock of Leary's Book Store of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in a crate that had been unopened since 1911. Ira G. Corn Jr. and Joseph P. Driscoll of Dallas bought the manuscript on May 7, 1969. A group of 17 people later sold it to the Dallas city government.
 * Virginia, Charlottesville — University of Virginia (one of two copies owned by the university) — found in an attic in Albany, New York in 1955 where it had been used to wrap other papers. Bought by Charles E. Tuttle Company of Rutland, Vermont; later sold to David Randall, who sold it in 1956 to the university.
 * Virginia, Charlottesville — University of Virginia (one of two copies owned by the university) — "The H. Bradley Martin Copy"; exhibited at the Grolier Club in 1974; sold on January 31, 1990 to Albert H. Small, who gave it to the university.
 * Roving copy, traveling around the United States — found in the back of a picture frame bought at a yard sale for $4.00 at an Adamstown, Pennsylvania flea market; now owned by a consortium which includes Norman Lear; sold in 2000 for $8.14 million; previously sold for $2.42 million on June 4, 1991
 * United Kingdom, London — Public Record Office, Admiralty Papers — Vice Admiral Richard Howe sent this copy from the flagship Eagle, then "off of Staten Island" with a letter dated July 28, 1776
 * United Kingdom, London — Public Record Office, Colonial Office Papers — General William Howe and Vice Admiral Richard Howe from the flagship Eagle, off Staten Island, sent this copy with a letter dated August 11, 1776, which stated, "A printed copy of this Declaration of Independency came accidentally to our hands a few days after the dispatch of the Mercury packet, and we have the honor to enclose it."

Source
Basically a junior version of the Wikipedia article


text:
Wikijunior:United States Charters of Freedom/Syng inkstand

The Syng inkstand was the inkstand used to sign the ../Declaration of Independence/ and the ../Constitution/. It was made by Philip Syng in 1752. He was a renowned silversmith and created fine works in silver and sometimes gold for the rich families of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The inkstand is presently on display at Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

Source
Basically a junior version of the Wikipedia article.


text:
Category:Book:Magic: The Gathering

pt:Categoria:Livro/Magic: The Gathering

title: Category:Book:Magic: The Gathering


text: Category:Book:Mambo Open Source

title: Category:Book:Mambo Open Source


text: Category:Book:Management Strategy

title: Category:Book:Management Strategy


text: Category:Book:Managing Groups and Teams

title: Category:Book:Managing Groups and Teams


text:
Category:Book:Maple

he:קטגוריה:מייפל

title: Category:Book:Maple


text: Category:Book:Mathematical Proof

title: Category:Book:Mathematical Proof


text: Category:Book:Medical Informatics

title: Category:Book:Medical Informatics


text: Category:Book:Meeting Basics

title: Category:Book:Meeting Basics