So I've considered before that Go doesn't have to be a two person game; you could have four people sitting at the board with four different color stones. Something I recently thought of though: Imagine if it's still two person, however, each player has two bowls of stones of different colors and so you have to play two different civilizations on the board at a time. Note that you're two types of stones are NOT allies and cannot share liberties. Also, a stone doesn't have to be surrounded by a single color to be captured, it just has to be surrounded by stones of colors not its own. The winner would be the player controlling the winning civilization according to standard rules so you could use one of your colors to try and win and the other to focus on fighting and stopping your opponent. I can't work out what this would be like strategically or even if it would really work. Any thoughts?
(Note: I consider the game of Go to be just perfect as is; this is just speculation for fun).

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

It seems that strategy would lead you to using one of your 'civilizations' as a sacrificial lamb to let your other color succeed. Could be an interesting experiment, though.

I sort of like the thought of multiple people playing multiple colors....only, they could work as alliances. Not permanent partnerships, but alliances that might be broken off or change during the game at any time. That useful partner of yours could suddenly turn on you...or the weakest players team up and destroy you.

Hi Joel,

Assuming you can only still play 1 stone on your turn,
and you have the option -- not obligation --
to play from either of your 2 colored stones on each turn,
then are there any good stragetic reasons
for you to use both your 2 colored stones ?

Example. Tom ( , red ). Jane ( , blue ).

Tom decides to use his stones exclusively.
If Mary decides to use both her and blue stones,
she may never be able to catch up with Tom.
Even if Mary only uses 1 blue stone exactly once and no more,
she may fall forever behind in development.What are the exact details ?

Do you require each player to use both colored stones ?
Alternating colors ? Crucial details to iron out first.

It's possible to use the 2nd color stones for aesthetic reasons:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Red stone at vital point
$$ ---------------
$$ | . C . X . . .
$$ | X X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

Can anyone come up with strategic reasons to voluntarily use both colors ?

I like the 4-player version that you describe. Sounds more fun than rengo to me.

Though, life and death could be tricky. For example, first person plays their first move, and by his next turn, he could already be in atari.

Figure out a good way to set komi for each of the players, and it sounds like a great game.

_________________
be immersed

The Multi-Player Go Rules
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/multigo.html
would have to be modified so that the four colours take turns the players alternate (turns B1, W1, B2, W2), and the winning players (two in the case of a jigo) are the players with at least one colour having the greatest score of the final position.

Hmm, the other 3 players can conspire to take out the first player:
he can save his stone in atari by extending once (3 libs),
but then the other 3 can simply capture his 2 stones.
So the first player may never have any stones left on the board.
Of course, the resulting shapes of the other 3 conspirators
may be very interesting indeed...

Nice experiment!

M&M's !

I was thinking the turn-base working out as already mentioned: The color at my left hand goes first, then my opponents' left hand color, followed by my right hand color and then my opponents'. Whatever the order of colors is (and it is a lot of fun thinking of what other colors should be used, Go is a very aesthetic game after all) they have to be played in that order. But I'm asking because there are some problems that I can think of and I imagine someone more experienced than I am would think of even more problems and things to work out. For instance, it might have to be no-pass Go so that you can't just play one color and pass the other (not sure if this would be advantageous or not). Or you might be able to use one of your colors for invasion only so that you don't give up prisoner points but require responses from the opponent. Also, ko and seki both seem like they could get a little tricky. At any rate, four person Go is also a viable option, I think. I'd love to find a group of people willing to try it out with me (I'd be surprised if there was a server prepared for this so over the board of course). I'm thinking for colors, black, bright yellow, navy blue and white. But that's the personal taste part of it, do you're own thing.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

I've also thought of a team-building variation similar to the game of spades (one of the better cards games if you've never played it). Four contestants sit around the board making up two "teams". The players who sit across from each other share the same color stones (just black and white) and the turn goes around the board clockwise with each person placing one stone. The kicker, there can be no communication whatsoever (relating to the game that is) between people placing the same color stones. It's all a matter of knowing your teammate and thinking on the same page. Just like in spades, things will get heated and the morale of the players comes heavily into play. Also, another game that my 5 year old nephew made up: The game of Go as is, however, you roll one die at the beginning of your turn and whatever you roll, that's how many stones you place (obviously, no-one will want to add a luck factor to such a beautiful game of pure skill but it is fun to try out and see how it works).

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

You're looking for rengo: http://senseis.xmp.net/?PairGo

This looks interesting. Ever tried it?

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

All the time, at least as rengo. It's fun, and can lead to craziness when you and your partner have different ideas on how to proceed, or they play a move you don't understand. At our club, we probably get a rengo game going once a month or a bit less, when we're in the mood to change it up. For one example about the possibilities in frustration and excitement, see http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11411.

I've never played official Pair Go, though it's the same game apart from rules regarding gender and often a contest for best dressed. It was developed to help draw in and involve women in the game, but some people view it as somewhat controversial.

Maybe that can be avoided by a slight change of the rule set, e.g. with four players: The objective of each player is to minimize the score of the color of the player sitting opposite, respectively. Under such rules, if three players take out one color jointly, only the player sitting opposite to this color wins; thus there would be no big point in blunt conspiracy.


Another proposed change in rule set: Every captured stone must be eaten immediately!

That’s a quite problematic suggestion, methinks — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?