QUENCH

Introduction

Quench is a series of finite Go variants with banned or restricted group creation subsequent to captures. Area scoring is used, and suicide of any number of stones is not allowed. The ko and superko rules are not used. All other Go rules apply unless otherwise specified.

Play

The variants are sorted from most to least different from Go.

Variant #1

Once a player makes a capture for the first time, that player can’t create any more groups for the rest of the game.

Variant #2

Once a player makes a capture for the first time, that player must perform exactly one of the following actions on every following turn for the remainder of the game:

• Pass.
• Place one stone of his color without creating any group.
• Place one stone of his color so that it joins two or more groups and another one so that it creates a new group, in that order.

Variant #3

When a player makes his first capture, he must place a coin next to himself, tails up. From then on, the following rules apply:

• When a player joins two or more groups, he must place his coin heads up.
• When a player creates a new group, he must place his coin tails up.
• A player’s move can only create a new group if his coin is heads up at the start of his turn.

Variant #4

Just like variant #3, except that the coins are placed heads up when they’re introduced.

Sample games

Variant #1

Sample 11x11 Quench game

Variant #3



Author’s notes

These variants are very different from Go, but I wonder how they compare to it in terms of depth. Once a player makes a capture, the game becomes easier than Go, but before that point there's a difficult strategic dilemma between capturing enemy groups in exchange for reduced move options thereafter and preserving your flexibility by letting threatened enemy groups escape. Also, the disincentive to make the first capture in variant #1 seems to be strong enough as to delay it for the most part of the game. When it finally happens, it's a turning point comparable to the choosing of colors in Unlur and Mind Ninja, but without the unequal goals.

Variants #2 to #4 make for a more challenging post-capturing phase by allowing players to create a new group every time they join two or more of their existing groups. This adds another strategic layer to the pre-capturing phase as well. Since having good prospects of joining some of your groups is crucial to success in the second phase, your play during the first phase must be adjusted accordingly. The dilemma is served again: there's an increased incentive to create many groups, but that also means more vulnerable groups.

What defines a group to determine if you can play a move or not?

I will venture to guess he means "orthogonally connected", which seems to be the standard understanding of group in abstract game design circles. But it's just a guess.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

That brings up a whole host of other questions, though. For example, is this one group, or more for each side?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ -----------------
$$ | . B B O . . . .
$$ | B . B O . . . .
$$ | B B O . . . . .
$$ | O O O , O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

I think it's safe to say that most go players would consider each side to have one group here, but the orthogonal connectedness gives 2 and 3, respectively.

A group is defined exactly as in Go, i.e. a set of orthogonally adjacent, like-colored stones.

Black has 2 groups and White has 3 here. That's the definition of group which is used in all the Quench variants.

To be perfectly explicit, go rules do need the concept of group so that you can check for capture, but unlike many abstract games (Slither, Oust, Sygo, Symple come to mind), you can give an informal explanation of the rules without talking about groups.

For that reason, to a go player, "group" usually does not mean a set of orthogonally connected stones of the same color, but a set of stones that "go together", in some looser sense. Groups can be disconnected.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ We talk about White's two stone group.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . W . . W . X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Here's a good summary of the word group in go, along with alternatives unit, chain, and string.

_________________
Founder, Central Mississippi Go Club
Free tips and resources for clubs and teaching
Go Kit Club Pack - pack of 13x13 go sets for clubs
Go Tin - very portable go

It's nutso, Luigi. Out of curiosity, what strategic depths do you think it has? You are very coy when you introduce these games so I am not sure whether you are being modest, or just really haven't thought about whether the game has any strategic aspects yet.

The "Author's notes" section in my first post reflects most of my current thoughts on the game's strategy. I have only played it a couple of times against other people (variant #1 once and variant #2 once). The game works, but my understanding of its strategic intricacies is still necessarily limited.

I was expecting seasoned Go players could help here. Any comments on the expected behaviour of the game are welcome. I'd also love to play a test game on a Malkovich thread against anyone interested. It would be a better illustration than anything I can say.

I recommend trying either Variant #1, which is the purest implementation of the general concept, or Variant #3, which strikes a good balance between simplicity of rules and flexibility of play. I don't like Variant #2 much myself because the frequent double moves in the second phase of the game are a bit too much of a change of pace for my taste, but that's subjective.

As a go player, I think I have zero intuition.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I suspect these rules make it so that if you are the first to capture a stone, you will lose the game very quickly, except for Variant 2, which I don't have any intuition for.

As I understand the game, Luigi, after the first capture it will be impossible to kill enemy groups, no matter how improbable these groups seem to a go player. In go, killing techniques require being able to create new strings at will.

I've noticed that both you and Christian Freeling create "variants" that show very little sensitivity to how go is played, which raises questions as to whether you've played it much. If you want to create variants of go that are both fun and meet your strict standards for rule simplicity, design a game you find strategically deep first, then see if you can finesse the cycles. You're a bit like the drunk searching for his keys under a lamplight. But I'm not sure whether it's possible to see strategic depths in a go variant before you've explored the strategic dimensions of go itself!

If you are just interested in the strategic ramifications of penalizing the first capture, play a variant where the first capture loses X points. If you are interested in the strategic ramifications of being forced to reconnect your groups, play a variant with a group tax of Y points at the end of the game. (NB, for the original game of Go, Y=2, not 0.)

It's true that capturing enemy stones early in the game with few groups to grow is an almost guaranteed loss, but that only means the game requires a very different approach from Go. Good players will try to delay the first capture until the size of the captured group and the number of groups he has to grow give him good winning prospects. Assessing the value of that capture relative to the loss of flexibility is the key strategic point of the game and creates a build-up of tension until the first capture is finally made. From that point onwards, the game becomes a trial of sorts where the player who made the capture will have to prove that his assessment was right.

The strong disincentive to capture also gives room to a powerful counter-strategy: chasing a big enemy group so that the opponent is forced to make a small capture too early in the game in order to save it. The chasing player's strategy will succeed if the enemy group is so big that capturing it would guarantee a win despite the loss of move options from that point.

Yes, what I meant is that given the fact that capturing a stone is so bad, I have no intuition for what play would be like.

Luigi: I suspect the threat to capture a big group is not realizable, at least in version 1. The issue is that in regular go, you can threaten to capture a big group because of escalation. You threaten to capture a smaller group, and the opponent decides he can't allow it and/or can't live in an unduly slow/passive way, and the resulting dynamic makes the group grow without yet securing life. The point is that the initial threat to capture is a threat. In your game, it's not really a credible threat, because capturing that smaller group would be a losing move.

Do you have a link to a completed game? I can't convince myself that version 1 is a game you could reasonably play.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Not impossible, but very difficult indeed. As I said in my previous post, this is something which must be assessed before making a capture, and that assessment is the core of the game's strategy.


I find Quench strategically deep. That's my main goal when designing games. I know it has little to do with how Go is played, but that's not necessarily good or bad. I'm not suggesting that Go players switch to Quench or any other Go variant. I'm only exploring the design space in search of other interesting implementations of the surround capture mechanic. Some of them are very similar to Go (like my passive ko variant), and some others have almost nothing to do with it (like this one).

In case you're wondering, I play 9x9 Go quite often, but I've played only a couple of times on 13x13 and only once on 19x19. I guess that doesn't qualify me as a Go player. My main focus is on designing games. When I design one which happens to use surround capture and I find it interesting enough, I post it here in the hope that Go players with a wider interest in abstract games will find it interesting as well and have some fun trying it when they need a rest from serious Go play. That's all.

Okay, I hear you. I'm just saying that if you note in your author's notes that groups without two eyes don't die at the end of the game like in go, or if you speculated a bit about how contact fights work when no one has any interest in capturing stones, that would clarify the extent to which you have thought through the game.

Yes, I understand that. There are really no credible capture threats in Quench #1 for at least half of the game.


I've added an 11x11 Quench #1 game to the original post for you. The viewer shows it as a 19x19 game, though. Am I doing anything wrong or is it just that the viewer doesn't support that size? If so, I'll remove the graphical display and leave just the download link.

The viewer only supports 9x9, 13x13, and 19x19. I think you can edit your original post to make your 11x11 game display on a 13x13.

_________________
Poka King of the south east.

OK, I'll just remove the viewer then.

EDIT: I don't know how to make the game display on a 13x13 board.