Random Ramblings

[Abyssinica]

Just IMO, with area scoring, if we end the game with all dame filled and then fill in the entire territory on the board with stones (Yes removing eyes but the game is over right ), then whoever has the most stones on the board wins. (Ignoring komi)

I just find that description more satisfying and simple. Like the goal of the game is as basic as the rules. (Also ignoring weird ko shenanigans)

[Elom]

No, the winner is the player who first captures one or more stones.

I claim that from the given position White wins, even if White plays first, because White has one more point of territory than Black, with a group tax. Let me show that.

$$Wc Moves 1 - 10
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O 1 3 5 7 |
$$ | 9 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | 2 4 6 8 0 . . . . |
$$ ---------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Moves 1 - 10
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O 1 3 5 7 |
$$ | 9 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | 2 4 6 8 0 . . . . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

$$Wcm11 Moves 11 - 20
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 0 8 6 X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O W W W W |
$$ | W 1 3 5 7 9 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | B B B B B . 2 4 . |
$$ ---------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm11 Moves 11 - 20
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 0 8 6 X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O W W W W |
$$ | W 1 3 5 7 9 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | B B B B B . 2 4 . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

$$Wcm21 Moves 21 - 30
$$ ---------------------
$$ | 4 . 6 8 0 . . . . |
$$ | . 2 B B B X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O W W W W |
$$ | W W W W W W . 1 . |
$$ | . . . . . 9 7 5 3 |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | B B B B B . B B . |
$$ ---------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm21 Moves 21 - 30
$$ ---------------------
$$ | 4 . 6 8 0 . . . . |
$$ | . 2 B B B X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O W W W W |
$$ | W W W W W W . 1 . |
$$ | . . . . . 9 7 5 3 |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | B B B B B . B B . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

$$Wcm31 Moves 31 - 40
$$ ---------------------
$$ | B . B B B 2 4 6 8 |
$$ | . B B B B X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O W W W W |
$$ | W W W W W W . W . |
$$ | 1 3 5 7 9 W W W W |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | B B B B B . B B 0 |
$$ ---------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm31 Moves 31 - 40
$$ ---------------------
$$ | B . B B B 2 4 6 8 |
$$ | . B B B B X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O W W W W |
$$ | W W W W W W . W . |
$$ | 1 3 5 7 9 W W W W |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | B B B B B . B B 0 |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

I doesn't matter where Black plays , she is forced to fill an eye and leave one group with only one liberty.

$$Wcm41 Move 41
$$ ---------------------
$$ | B . B B B B B B B |
$$ | . B B B B X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O W W W W |
$$ | W W W W W W . W . |
$$ | W W W W W W W W W |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | B B B B B 1 B B B |
$$ ---------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm41 Move 41
$$ ---------------------
$$ | B . B B B B B B B |
$$ | . B B B B X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O W W W W |
$$ | W W W W W W . W . |
$$ | W W W W W W W W W |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | B B B B B 1 B B B |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

OC, the quick way to tell who wins when there are no more dame left (and there is no stone inside the opponent's territory) is to count territory with a group tax.

BTW, the earliest surviving game records with scores apparently used territory scoring with a group tax.

Ah, I see—so the capture game and the stone-filling game both resemble group-tax go. Or more accurately, the stone filling game is group-tax go, which the capture game resembles in the endgame.

So would it be correct to say the original rules of go involved seeing who could get most stones on the board. Later on, two points of komi was given to each player for every group they had on the board, which is area scoring. Then komi was added to white for black's first move advantage to get the modern version of the game .

On a similar note, I like the idea of converting as many additional points into in-game elements as possible, such as black giving white six stones at the beginning of the game for komi when playing under Japanese/AGA rules (it might help players remember which ruleset they're using!). I might post something on it.

[Elom]

During the days of the oteai, 5p marked a heavyweight professional player with bigger earnings and direct entry into later rounds of major go competitions. From what I remember, the new systems attempted to democratise the field, but I did think of a system hearkening the old 5p demarcation.

A 5p anchor. Maybe something along the lines of separating professionals into those that mainly teach and those that mainly play*.

(1) Teaching pros could be ranked 1p to 5p. Their promotion will be variable according to pro organisation (peharps using points-based systems or similar).

(2) Promotion to 5p may also occur through winning a 'special' tournament, by which I mean those international or domestic tournaments restricted by age or gender, or utilising 'fast' time limits, the definition of which go pros or others best decide (a certain average time per move; a required main time and byo-yomi?). The terms 'international' and 'domestic' from here on excludes special tournaments.

Tournament sponsors benefit from reserving major prizes for the later rounds rather than the preliminaries. Teaching professionals may be referred to as such owing to them not entering the main rounds of domestic or international tournaments, their income acquired primarily through teaching, commentary and other go-related work, or doing well in special tournaments, or a combination of these. In addition, a pro dan may aid in entering university in South Korea and China (using Korea, with about 30 times less the population of China, as a model, the success of a teaching professional may be as dependent upon the general benefits go is perceived to have as anything else. Another small ramble on the way). In this sense, being a teaching professional may be similar to obtaining a Phd before teaching a subject, so having a high number of them should pose little problem.

(3) Playing professionals may be ranked 5p to 9p, with the promotion method universal among pro organisations. It seems to be good sense that the strongest amateurs and the strongest teaching professionals are as good as the weakest playing professionals, the mid-range of the professional spectrum. As stated above, promotion to 5p comes from winning a special tournament.

5p-Winning a special tournament

6p-Entering the main rounds or the league of a domestic tournament

7p-Challenging for a domestic tournament or Entering the main rounds of an international tournament

8p-Winning a domestic tournament or Challenging for an international tournament

9p-Winning an international tournament

9p would be resreved for top pros. And this system reserves the international focus the current ones may want to maintain, in addition to promoting tournaments with longer time settings. Tournaments with faster time settings may be regarded a 'popular' tournaments in which the focus is on entertainment and promoting go with many female, youth, seniors, and international slots perhaps including pros from the EGF and AGA. It may be interesting to see what the distribution of p ranks would be if we apply this system.

*I forgot to mention that this idea is obviously the one from Shimamura Toshihiro John Fairbairn mentioned.

[Elom]

Hopefully this will be my last major ratings musing in a while. Factors such as burnout and a temporary compromise in sharpness left me go philosophising^ to the point were it replaced go playing. At the very least, I think there is a pattern of ideas from people with limited knowledge of an area, included those so-called 'left-of-field': in most cases, 50% will be gibberish, 40% will be something everyone knows but that the newbie thinks is novel because, of course, she or he has never seen it, but 10% might remotely mention something a more competent person can take and make useful.

^Hopefully, the resulting rants have a tolerably obnoxious tone, contrasting with a couple of my... older ones.

Traditional ratings use material advantage to align grades, in that they measure one's ability to overcome a n-move advantage. Japanese rules standardised the placement of these first moves when they were two or more.

As most are aware of, aligning win confidences to material advantage is tricky, as the same winning confidence difference requires less material advantage. 90% confidence in the dan range may only require a few handincap stones, but for a beginner it requires many. So rating systems such as the one used by the EGF take this into account, but it still seems to involve a little judgment of arbitrary values.

So over the past few days, I've wondered about two things relating to this. The first is that there maybe should be a division between grades generated from material advantage, usually derived through over-the-board play, and confidence grades, as used in online servers, and achievement dans, given to amateurs in China and South Korea and professionals in all organisations with professional players. I'll call them Abililty kyu-dans, Confidence kyu-dans, and Diploma dans, because I can't think of any good names.

The second is that in purely confidence-based ratings, it may be reasonable to use large confidence bands for grades among weaker players. Mamumamu0413 uses 75%, and that is among pros. I thought about 90% for amateurs, which just doubles the width of the bands (the 75% value is based on powers of three, and 90% on powers of nine, which is three squared). The reason is because I am not aware of martial arts with more than a dozen kyu grades—I only know of them having at most just over half. As most know, ranks for weaker players are unstable, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to worry about small differences, and changing grades would still occur quickly due to it being easier to improve. But one may also avoid online-go anxiety online if your grade is barely at stake for any game. Maybe it will also encourage games between players of different strengths. It may even be more simple and relatable for newcomers.

The third is that it may be good to derive confidence rating ratings from random play via bots. For example, random play could be rated at 0, and the bot that wins against random play by 90% will have a rating of 1. One could even go into negative ratings by programming bots to be worse than random. It's probaly best to use multiple bots; Dennis Hassabis said that Alphago tends to do better against versions of itself than other players of similar strength, which may also be true of others bots. Something approaching an absolute rating table might be achieved—of course, not outright, for reasons reasons including the fact that bots are not quite an accurate way to represent human play, but this text is already too long.

After this, we could experiment with different handicap stones and apply then en masse to the bots at different ratings to generate a table of handicaps for each difference in confidence.

edit: another silly idea I hadn't time to write, but if 90% win ratios are used from 1 dan, one might have a few kyus—say 1 to 5
as brown band, red band, blue band, green band and yellow band with the sixth kyu being white belt (bands instead of belts, what with igo being a mindsport were one uses the head and often the hands. This is getting sillier by the sentence).

Except, six kyu would be a white band with a black stripe. My memory recalls that in some martial arts, 1 dan is represented by a black belt with a white stripe. The black belt of one set of rankings is the white belt of another*. This double sets becomes a triple set with the go bands. So a a beginner may start anywhere within the Junior kyus, from a band solid white at 12 kyu to those white with and middle striped up to six. Then the colours repeat themselves in solid mode kyu's five to one, then at 1 dan you have a black band with a white stripe, changing the colours of the stripes up 6 dan.

By the level of 7 dan with a solid black belt, it should be too much to use winning confidences of 90% as a form of demarcation if they should be used at all, so ending it here seems best. it may be worth noting that if seven dan aligned with the EGF's seven dan, one dan may be near many Japanese club's one dan.

*Life begins at 40, the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end, rebirth at—ah, the concept should be clear by now.

[Bill Spight]

Ah, I see—so the capture game and the stone-filling game both resemble group-tax go. Or more accurately, the stone filling game is group-tax go, which the capture game resembles in the endgame.

Actually, almost every form of no pass go has a group tax. OC, there is no danger of having to fill an eye needed for life before the endgame.

So would it be correct to say the original rules of go involved seeing who could get most stones on the board.

The oldest surviving description of how to play go says that stones were counted. We think that it was equivalent to the stone counting variant that survived in China into the 20th century. However, the oldest surviving game records with scores do not count stones, but count territory, and the scores agree with having a group tax.

On a similar note, I like the idea of converting as many additional points into in-game elements as possible, such as black giving white six stones at the beginning of the game for komi when playing under Japanese/AGA rules.

Me, too.

[Elom]

I wonder what the play would be like of a savant who could visualise well in three-dimensional* space or could calculate very quickly as a small boost to their endgame. Or how many different playing styles would arise from a group of beginners told as few strategic concepts as possible**. I guess Ying and Yang remain connected, no matter the distance, in the Surrounding Garden we all live in.

*the word should be dimensioned, dimensioned I tell you!

**Perhaps the stone-filling game is best here...

[Elom]

Just IMO, with area scoring, if we end the game with all dame filled and then fill in the entire territory on the board with stones (Yes removing eyes but the game is over right ), then whoever has the most stones on the board wins. (Ignoring komi)

I just find that description more satisfying and simple. Like the goal of the game is as basic as the rules. (Also ignoring weird ko shenanigans)

That's Othello, right?

[Abyssinica]

Just IMO, with area scoring, if we end the game with all dame filled and then fill in the entire territory on the board with stones (Yes removing eyes but the game is over right ), then whoever has the most stones on the board wins. (Ignoring komi)

I just find that description more satisfying and simple. Like the goal of the game is as basic as the rules. (Also ignoring weird ko shenanigans)

That's Othello, right?

Do stones change colour

[Elom]

Just IMO, with area scoring, if we end the game with all dame filled and then fill in the entire territory on the board with stones (Yes removing eyes but the game is over right ), then whoever has the most stones on the board wins. (Ignoring komi)

I just find that description more satisfying and simple. Like the goal of the game is as basic as the rules. (Also ignoring weird ko shenanigans)

That's Othello, right?

Do stones change colour

I just thought that scoring according to those rules in full for some odd reason would fool the innocent onlooker even more— and you've just found the perfect response!

Two people playing go...

...An innocent onlooker walks by... and says:

'Ah, that's Othello right!'

The player who lost says:

'Oh— actually, this is Go. Have you heard of AlphaGo on the news?'

The player who won says:

'You think these stones just changed colour by themselves? Really? Really?'

[Elom]

Having rambled quite a bit, it would be nice to slow down a bit. Really. But some people have pondering brains, and just...

As a very weak player, I've wondered over the past few months about a few things that have been touched on recently in 'personality for go' thoughts and the like. Maybe material for some sort of essay-ramble. Like a 'my approach to study' part 2 with half the bravado— still too much, by any means.

[Elom]

The elderly might be more likely to take up go.

Using a up-down approach might work. Many may be lonely and more than happy to take up the game.

Hmm, I realise I often do far more harm than good.

[Elom]

More on rambling on things I'm uninitiated in. This time it's about the classes mentioned in post one. It's the ramble-essay I mentioned before... And I subvert the Uberdude's law of the internet by using European go as an example, but things should be similar in many parts of the world. I may have forgotten a few things rushing in this text in two days. Take it with a bowl of salt (it's really thinking out loud).

Shindou
Atoms make molecules that make cells that make tissues that make organs that make organ systems that make organisms. And so it is with knowledge, perhaps— take a simple process, and combine various simple processes to make a complex process. Master the complex process so that it becomes second nature, a simple process. Combine it with other complex processes converted into simple processes to make a second level complex process. Repeat. A third level complex process.

Part one: A capping play

Part one: A capping play

Code: Select all

————————|
|A <|> T|<----Cap
| ^   ^ |
————————|
| v   v |<----Base
|K <|>I | 
———————— <^Stable to unstable
^
|
Lamborghini lower left hand corner

So I was wondering if any activity may be considered a Base, with a set of knowledge and intuition defining it. A thought experiment: football (all shapes welcome) can be described as the knowledge of how to move one's self and organise many selves to put a ball past the line according to the rules of football. Against another team. In order to keep and use this knowledge efficiently, the mind converts it into it's high-power form: intuition. Having greater intuition might allow one to understand and then pick up ideas from professional football matches, increasing knowledge at a faster rate.

In order to play, athleticism in both the mind and the body are required; a minimum amount each of physical and mental ability different and depending on the sport (in this case, football). It may be difficult to improve if one threw in the towel at the slightest set back, or transitioned to chimp mode every loss and disappointment. Improving the control of one's emotions and temperament seems useful.

One's overall athletic abilities and temperament control are the same, moving this cap from base to base. It is true that different traits of athleticism and temperaments do best for different activities, but at least at the lower levels of each, improvement optimal for one is helpful for all or most of others. Except perhaps improvement in competitive sleeping. Actually, even that.

I think sometimes people enjoy a sport at first for the cap as much as anything else about it. If through go kids can find a way to improve their mental and physical* in athleticism and to better manage ups and downs, finding a talented individual who can benefit from a base focus is good karma, a matter of course for helping the community. *Myousu English 2, pg 48

Part two: Promoting

Part two: Promoting
Go population pyramid. Along with the healthiest numbers.

0.16% Class P: Pursuant, (often 5 dan) exPert (often 6 dan) and Pro (often 7+ dan)
^20% v80%
0.64% Class A: Advanced (often 1 dan to 4 dan)
^20% v80%
3.20% Class B: hoBby, anyone who wants to improve (often Single Digit Kyu)
^20% v80%
16.0% Class C: Casual, 13x13, anyone who just plays for fun (often Double Digit kyu)
^20% v80%
80.0% Class D: introDuctory, 9x9, anyone who knows the game and rules (often Twenty plus kyu)

The number of people in each class is four times more than of all the classes above them combined. I think this balance is more sustainable than one where class B is biggest. Maybe one could put go events, promotion and activities into three types:

Types 1: Casual, Cap— Classes D, C and B.
Social and fun.

I think it would be good to try to normalise go in the popular culture. Rather than focusing on go's difficulty, it would make sense to show it most appropriate for many people.

To this end, I wonder about whether teaching beginners the opening is good. Beginning game theory changes over time, and is best understood when one has gotten a feel for the game and the consequences of different plays. It's an advanced concept. Endgame theory is more defined. Anyone can understand it, as it refers to concrete terms: the points at the end of the game. Maybe beginners should learn endgame theory first, before even being told that it is best to play in the corners. telling beginners to play this or that in the opening may stifle their creativity. The goal at the beginning isn't to get them to be good, it's to get them to think, and to get them to feel, to focus on the cap.

Tell beginners they can play wherever they want, but to look at pro games and figure out what the best moves are. This has two benefits. They will already have an adventure to figure out, even if they have zero interest in go, they will want to see if they can be the on to figure out the best move. This is better than dictating to them where to play, which might discourage them from learning as it's like going to class. Saying they can be free to play wherever they want in the opening is also a great encouragement. Many might also like a stimulating mental challenge especially parentys for for their kids as an alternative to video games and the elderly as social addition to the likes of Sudoku and wordsearch (sorry that I may be stereotyping here). Health benefits of go.This is the upper left hand corner.

Kids have two options to learn.

1. Rather than dictating to them what to play, get kids to talk about why they play each move. not only is it good for a child to get into the good life habit habit of reviewing her mistakes (introspection), but writing up a review should be seen as a normal task after playing a go game which would be a great way to improve her language skill.

2. Multiplication and other math techniques from calculating the endgame, or estimating the score during the game.

Given kids a choice of what they prefer is already a way to encourage them to learn. This should be a parents heaven. This is the upper right hand corner of the Cap-Base model. Keep everything as neat and fun as possible and there should be little to lose.

In reviews, only note the major points of the beginning and focus on the endgame. Once they first learn the consequences of the moves they played earlier on, it would be easier to teach them the middle game, and then the beginning game. On that same note, casual players should focus on middle game techniques. I've heard commented game videos are best for this, so live streams of go matches could focus making go appealing to those with only a casual interest in the game.

From what I can tell, teaching the basics of the endgame is best on a 9x9 board, as it comes up early and is simpler. Likewise, teaching double digit kyu players the basics of middle game is best on a 13x13 board. And proper opening study can start single digit kyu on the 19x19 board. I jokingly think of the 9x9 as a duel board, because it makes sense to promote it bit like the TCG's, complete with beautiful designs (someone versed in design will know if this is true, but from what I've seen, simple is best). And the 13x13 board as a 'family' board because it's simple enough to play as if it were a family board game. The 19x19 board can be left alone as normal. These may be cringeworthy suggestions, but maybe go has a special power over any other classical board game, in that the three different board sizes can be promoted as three different games (in a way they are).

By putting simpler alternatives in the popular imagination, and focusing on free expression in the opening, people may see go less as a difficult game that is no fun and see it as a cultural phenomenon of east Asia. The reaction should be, 'thank goodness this game was invented'. So, 'A few simple rules, limitless possibilities ...'

Type 1, east Asian phenomenon.

Type 2, Hobby, Cap and Base— Classes C, B and A:
Normal tournaments.

I think most of the active go population fall into class B, so maybe this is as simple as thinking of general improvements to tournaments. Someone who already plays go as a casual player may the be encouraged to improve by learning about the depth and complexity of the game. it would be another interpretation of 'A few simple rules, limitless possibilities ...'

Type 2, the deepest art.

Type 3, Advanced, Base— Classes B, A and P:
Major tournaments.

This is the advanced training camps, sending European players to asia, and other high-level events.
Type 3, play with Asian pros.

Maybe it makes sense to put an equal amount of resources into each type of event.
An event like the EGC is a combination of all three types of event.

Part three: Matrix

Part three: Matrix

Getting parents engaged first is good. After that, try to encourage children.
Get lonely millennials and older people to interact with each other through go. I think this will provide many benefits!

Code: Select all

|Class D  |Class C  |Class B  |Class A  |Class P  |
|—————————|—————————|—————————|—————————|—————————|
|U20&30-49|         |         |         |         |
|—————————|—————————|—————————|—————————|—————————|
|20-29&50+|         |         |         |         |
|—————————|—————————|—————————|—————————|—————————|

It might be long and not clear because I'm poor at writing and rushed this.

[Elom]

I've read that Chess is best learned backwards, too.

It's a shame that a game as deep and complex as go is shunned by some for being so (a sign of our times?). I've realised that maybe some the text above describes applying trainer wheels to the timid to get them to give go a try.

[Elom]

Couldn't the amount of time each player has left be a rough score-chart for go? The less time you've used, the more likely it is that you're winning. If only online go servers developed a way to accurately show the time left for each player in professional relays...

[emeraldemon]

Couldn't the amount of time each player has left be a rough score-chart for go? The less time you've used, the more likely it is that you're winning. If only online go servers developed a way to accurately show the time left for each player in professional relays...

I think in general if players are losing they take more time to think, but not always. Sometimes one player just plays slower. And sometimes I am winning on the board but then I lose on time