A Complete Introduction to the Game of Go

[xed_over]

the basic fundamental object of the game is to use your game pieces, called stones, to surround those of your opponent‘s.

This is not true, not well thought out, and needs to be re-considered, re-organized, and re-written -- That's my opinion.

Perhaps it's not worded very well but I think I know what you mean. I think what I'm really trying to say is that the ability to capture stones by surrounding them is a signature component of the game.

No, Ed's right... its not about surrounding and capturing stones, and I certainly wouldn't consider that a signature component of the game.

Its about surrounding and controlling territory/area.

There can often be games where not one stone is ever captured.

[Uberdude]

I think the troublesome phrase was "basic fundamental object of the game" (nevermind the tautology of basic fundamental), which I agree is to surround territory. But I would agree the capture rule is the core rule of the game which gives it its character, even if captures are more often threatened than actually happen.
On the idea of an illustrative game in a beginnner book, I liked the annotated game of Matthew Macfadyen in his book (which I learnt from) as it gave me a glimpse of the depth of the game, even as I struggled to spot ataris myself.

[Bill Spight]

The name of the game, “go”, stems from the Japanese word “Igo” which translates “The surrounding board game” and so the basic fundamental object of the game is to use your game pieces, called stones, to surround those of your opponent‘s.

I think the troublesome phrase was "basic fundamental object of the game" (nevermind the tautology of basic fundamental), which I agree is to surround territory. But I would agree the capture rule is the core rule of the game which gives it its character, even if captures are more often threatened than actually happen.
On the idea of an illustrative game in a beginnner book, I liked the annotated game of Matthew Macfadyen in his book (which I learnt from) as it gave me a glimpse of the depth of the game, even as I struggled to spot ataris myself.

My speculation is that Ur-Go was a game of capture. However, it became a game of territory, called Weiqi in Chinese, Igo in Japanese. What is territory? Bascially, territory consists of points on the board that you control such that you can safely play stones there but if your opponent plays stones there you can safely capture them. The main way of controlling territory is to surround it, and the Chinese Wei and Japanese I refer to surrounding. A player's score includes points of territory; different scoring methods count different things in addition. The two main modern scoring methods, called area scoring and territory scoring, define territory slightly differently, but the results usually differ by one point or less.

[Joelnelsonb]

I've made a lot of revision and plan to update my posts accordingly but for the time being, here is the revised statement:

"...The name of the game, “go”, stems from the Japanese word “Igo” which translates “The surrounding board game” and so the signature element of the game is the ability of the players to use their game pieces, called stones, to surround those of the opponent."

Notice that it doesn't say "surround and capture" because that would be to specific to one tactic of the game. The concept of simply surround is, in my opinion, at the core of the strategical complex of the game. Referring to the idea that if you can surround your opponents stones then you make them less effective in relation to the rest of the board (think of sealing in a group). Also, this is the last place that I feel like strict, precise and perfectly accurate definitions are necessary. Thank you for the help though, please keep it coming!

[Bill Spight]

I've made a lot of revision and plan to update my posts accordingly but for the time being, here is the revised statement:

"...The name of the game, “go”, stems from the Japanese word “Igo” which translates “The surrounding board game” and so the signature element of the game is the ability of the players to use their game pieces, called stones, to surround those of the opponent."

Notice that it doesn't say "surround and capture" because that would be to specific to one tactic of the game. The concept of simply surround is, in my opinion, at the core of the strategical complex of the game. Referring to the idea that if you can surround your opponents stones then you make them less effective in relation to the rest of the board (think of sealing in a group). Also, this is the last place that I feel like strict, precise and perfectly accurate definitions are necessary. Thank you for the help though, please keep it coming!

What is the point of surrounding a live group? Sure, you may reduce its influence, but it reduces the influence of your surrounding stones, as well.

[Joelnelsonb]

Because if your opponent has a heavy group on the board and youve surrounded all of his living groups, you've essentially surrounded the heavy group.


In my original post, I've revised many things including the rules terminology, basically explaining as follows: There is one rule with three stipulations. The one rule being to get the most stones on the board and the stipulations dictating where you can place them.

Also, it has occurred to me that there is actually a very significant difference between area and territory scoring that I had never thought of. Due to this, I now realize that under territory scoring, the "no definite ending aside from resignation" doesn't work and there must be a way for players to mutually agree to end play. Without going into elaborate detail, its based on the idea that under territory scoring, it costs you points to place stones that are unnecessary with the exception of dame.Therefore, if you've killed a group, you want to leave it dead with as few of stones as possible. As I understand it, when there's a disagreement about the status of a group during the scoring phase then you take note of the current position, play it out to prove it's status, and then return the board to the original position and score it based on that. This creates an entirely different complex than that which is scene in area scoring where you don't play things out simply because its a waste of time, however, you're still scoring the board AS IF it was played out as far as it could be. Otherwise, a dead stone would count as a point for its owner because it is still on the board at the end play. If territory scoring didn't work this way then players would always demand that their groups were alive until completely captured and in area scoring, you would have to count dead stones or play till they were captured meaning that the concept of alive and dead would be useless.

[EdLee]

Because if your opponent has a heavy group on the board and youve surrounded all of his living groups, you've essentially surrounded the heavy group.

Joel, indeed -- what are you talking about ?

[Bill Spight]

Also, it has occurred to me that there is actually a very significant difference between area and territory scoring that I had never thought of. Due to this, I now realize that under territory scoring, the "no definite ending aside from resignation" doesn't work and there must be a way for players to mutually agree to end play. Without going into elaborate detail, its based on the idea that under territory scoring, it costs you points to place stones that are unnecessary with the exception of dame.

Sorry, but since you allow players to pass, your rules are also inconsistent with "no definite ending aside from resignation" idea. OTOH, No Pass Go in its various forms is consistent with that idea. One of its forms being equivalent to territory scoring with a group tax. Which we know was played in ancient times.

Not that you haven't pointed to problems with modern territory scoring. But every such rule set has ways of dealing with those problems.

[Joelnelsonb]

Because if your opponent has a heavy group on the board and youve surrounded all of his living groups, you've essentially surrounded the heavy group.

Joel, indeed -- what are you talking about ?

This is kinda' an extreme example of what I'm talking about. Obviously, a stronger opponent would never allow you to do this but its still the basic strategically idea, imo.

[skydyr]

I think you're confusing heavy with dead in this case.

For a group or stone to be heavy, there are a few requirements from the top of my head:
1) Not light
a) not easy to sacrifice as a whole
b) not easy to sacrifice a part
2) Not yet alive, and often generally lacking in eyeshape
3) Attackable or having sente moves the opponent can play against it to accomplish a goal
4) Not yet dead

As corollaries:
If you're light, you can ignore attacks for bigger points or sacrifice strategically
If you're alive, you have nothing to worry about
If you're not attackable, say because there's nothing else anywhere nearby, or you're strong enough, there's no liability
If you're dead, you shouldn't be worrying about saving the group, though maybe you can exploit its aji later

Heavy has nothing to do with being sealed in or not. Being sealed in is bad, but separate. Heavy is about having a group that is a liability. It means you have to devote resources to defending it that you would rather place elsewhere. Note that this refers to living specifically, not just losing territory.

[Joelnelsonb]

I've attached at the end of the original post a pdf copy of the intro and first chapter of the book. Most of the material is just a repeat of whats been posted, however, I have made some major revisions and would highly appreciate constructive criticism from anyone willing to read through it. I'd like to hear from players from all skill levels in order to get ideas about how players of varying experience think of the game. I would definitely like to hear from any total beginners about whether I'm making good sense of things or if I'm straying into being overly theoretical. Also keep in mind that I am writing the book entirely for fun and for the purpose of passing it on to my nephews and future children. I do not expect to ever make money off of it. Thanks everyone!

[EdLee]

Hi Joel,

The first empty board photo on page 5 is quite pretty. It's nice.

The 19x19 board size is the standard and you will seldom see competitive players using anything else as this has been the custom for at least 2,000 years.

Are you sure about the 2,000-year-at-least duration for 19x19 ? I seem to recall they used to play 17x17 (and other sizes) in ancient China.
Where's your source (citation?) for the 2,000-year-at-least duration for 19x19 ?

[EdLee]

Hi Joel,

At the start of the game, each player is equipped with a bowl containing 180 identical stones:

180 + 180 = 360 which doesn't cover all 361 intersections on the 19x19 board.

Mr. Kuroki ships his slate & shell sets with 181 and 180 ,
plus a few "spare" stones for each color.

Other manufacturers also usually ship a few more than 181 and 180 .

As a practical matter, usually we don't care about how many stones exactly in each bowl
( unless for some very strict ING situation ), and as long as there are more than 181 and 180 ,
it's usually good enough. Often time, club sets don't even have 180 or 180 --
people just "re-cycle" stones, or, "borrow" from their friends at the next table if they run out.

It seems unusual to mention the exact number of stones in each bowl (except for some strict ING situation).
I think it suffices to say if you have at least 181 and 180 ,
then you can at least cover all 361 intersections, but there's still no guarantee
your game won't run out of stones.

[EdLee]

Hi Joel,

However, stones may be captured and removed from the board if certain conditions are not met regarding those stones.

This feels a little cumbersome to me. Since the conditions are "symmetrical" --
zero liberties (positive) or no remaining liberties (negative) --
it seems unnecessary to use the negative in your sentence above.

[EdLee]

The winner is the player who can get the most stones permanently placed on the board.

( Bold in original text; not mine. )

Hi Joel, Are you sure about the above statement ?

$$B Zero captures
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Zero captures
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]