Life In 19x19 http://lifein19x19.com/ |
|
Random Ramblings http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15804 |
Page 2 of 4 |
Author: | Abyssinica [ Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:57 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
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) |
Author: | Elom [ Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:12 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
Bill Spight wrote: 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. I doesn't matter where Black plays , she is forced to fill an eye and leave one group with only one liberty. 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. |
Author: | Elom [ Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:12 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
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. |
Author: | Elom [ Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:59 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
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. |
Author: | Bill Spight [ Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:14 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
Elom wrote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. |
Author: | Elom [ Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:29 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
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... |
Author: | Elom [ Wed Aug 29, 2018 4:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
Abyssinica wrote: 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? |
Author: | Abyssinica [ Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:42 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
Elom wrote: Abyssinica wrote: 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 |
Author: | Elom [ Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:05 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
Abyssinica wrote: Elom wrote: Abyssinica wrote: 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?' |
Author: | Elom [ Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:22 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
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. |
Author: | Elom [ Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:40 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
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. |
Author: | Elom [ Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
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 two: Promoting Part three: Matrix It might be long and not clear because I'm poor at writing and rushed this. |
Author: | Elom [ Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
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. |
Author: | Elom [ Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:51 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
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... |
Author: | emeraldemon [ Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
Elom wrote: 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 |
Author: | Elom [ Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
emeraldemon wrote: 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 Ouch... It is quite a rough marker, I guess . I don't know if there is less variation in time usage amongst stronger players. It might then be more accurate for professionals than kyu players . |
Author: | Elom [ Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
Has anyone noticed that Go seems a bit like a jigsaw puzzle? |
Author: | Elom [ Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:48 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
Hmm... I think the Japanese phrase 'Onegai-Shimasu' seems to translate well into 'go ahead' when said before a game of some sort. While some keep the more literal translation of please, in the context of starting a game it seems more like a polite way of telling black to play the first move, with black saying likewise as a convention. Would anyone know if i'm missing something here...? |
Author: | Elom [ Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:59 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
Rough population ratios; China:Japan:S.Korea:Taiwan = 60:5:2:1 If all of these countires were equally strong, this should be the distribution in the top 68. Okay, It's a simplification, as different countries might have the sam strength but a different distribution of it. Maybe one could do something similar for female professionals. |
Author: | Elom [ Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Random Ramblings |
I wonder if anyone who is experienced in teaching new players can tell me if this strategy could work or not. I think you can make a distinction between newcomers and beginners . For a new players first go experience, play capture go with her on a 4x4 board. Just tell her to be careful and then give her black. If she loses, it will likely be caused by her creating two groups or her playing in their own space. Tell her the *two special secrets* to success in go, and play again. Also, what do you think of teaching in this type of order. Newkyu 4x4 board v Teach capture go, rulesets and basic endgame principles on 7x7 board v Beginner 9x9 board v Teach basic joseki on 13x13 board v 19x19 board |
Page 2 of 4 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |