Random Ramblings

General conversations about Go belong here.
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by Bill Spight »

Abyssinica wrote:I thought go's purpose was to put as many stones on the board as you can and whoever has more, wins.

So in Chinese rules at the end we can just fill in our territory and whoever has to get one of their groups down to one eye loses.


Actually, that's the capture game. :)

Using Tryss's example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]


Under modern territory scoring, Black has 14 pts. on the top and 9 pts. on the bottom, for 23 pts., and White has 22 pts.; so Black wins by 1 pt.

However, in the capture game neither player wants to play inside the other's territory first and lose that stone, so each player will fill in her own territory. Because of the necessity of two eye points per group, Black has only 12 moves (i.e., points) on the top and 7 moves (points) on the bottom for 19 moves (points) total. White has 20 moves (points); so White is one move (1 pt.) ahead. So White will win, no matter whose turn it is. :)
Last edited by Bill Spight on Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
User avatar
jlt
Gosei
Posts: 1786
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:59 am
GD Posts: 0
Has thanked: 185 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by jlt »

Anyway, with one rule or the other, the game stays about the same. Beginners think it's a game of life and death. After a while they realize the goal of the game is not to kill the opponent, but to make a bigger territory. And after a while they realize the game is not about making territories, but about life and death.
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by Bill Spight »

jlt wrote:Anyway, with one rule or the other, the game stays about the same. Beginners think it's a game of life and death. After a while they realize the goal of the game is not to kill the opponent, but to make a bigger territory. And after a while they realize the game is not about making territories, but about life and death.


The Zen of Go. :) Mountains are mountains. ;)
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Elom
Lives in sente
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:18 am
Rank: OGS 9kyu
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: WindnWater, Elom
Location: UK
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by Elom »

Tryss wrote:This is a "area scoring + group tax" rule, slightly different from the usual area scoring. Take this exemple :

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc both players have played the same stone numbers
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]


With area scoring, black has 41 points, and white 40, so it's a black win.

But if you force both players to fill :

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------
$$ | B . B . B B B B B |
$$ | 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 |
$$ | . B . B B B B B B |
$$ ---------------------[/go]


Black can only put 19 more stones inside his territories, while white can put 20 stone : white will win


Basically, each group cost you 2 points compared to the usual area scoring

Does this mean that group-tax go, which is counting to see who has more stones to determine the winner, becomes modern area scoring if you give two points of komi to each player for every group they have on the board?

Bill Spight wrote:
Abyssinica wrote:I thought go's purpose was to put as many stones on the board as you can and whoever has more, wins.

So in Chinese rules at the end we can just fill in our territory and whoever has to get one of their groups down to one eye loses.


Actually, that's the capture game. :)

Using Tryss's example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]


Under modern territory scoring, Black has 14 pts. on the top and 9 pts. on the bottom, for 23 pts., and White has 22 pts.; so Black wins by 1 pt.

However, in the capture game neither player wants to play inside the other's territory first and lose that stone, so each player will fill in her own territory. Because of the necessity of two eye points per group, Black has only 12 moves (i.e., points) on the top and 7 moves (points) on the bottom for 19 moves (points) total. White has 20 moves (points); so White is one move (1 pt.) ahead. So White will win, no matter whose turn it is. :)


Is the capture game in which who loses fewer stones wins? :D
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by Bill Spight »

Elom wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Abyssinica wrote:I thought go's purpose was to put as many stones on the board as you can and whoever has more, wins.

So in Chinese rules at the end we can just fill in our territory and whoever has to get one of their groups down to one eye loses.


Actually, that's the capture game. :)

Using Tryss's example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X O O O O |
$$ | O O O O O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O O O O |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]


Under modern territory scoring, Black has 14 pts. on the top and 9 pts. on the bottom, for 23 pts., and White has 22 pts.; so Black wins by 1 pt.

However, in the capture game neither player wants to play inside the other's territory first and lose that stone, so each player will fill in her own territory. Because of the necessity of two eye points per group, Black has only 12 moves (i.e., points) on the top and 7 moves (points) on the bottom for 19 moves (points) total. White has 20 moves (points); so White is one move (1 pt.) ahead. So White will win, no matter whose turn it is. :)


Is the capture game in which who loses fewer stones wins? :D


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.

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]


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]


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]


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 :b40:, she is forced to fill an eye and leave one group with only one liberty.

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. :)
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
User avatar
Abyssinica
Lives in gote
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:36 am
Rank: Miserable 4k
GD Posts: 0
KGS: STOP STALKING ME
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by 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 :cool: ), 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
Lives in sente
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:18 am
Rank: OGS 9kyu
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: WindnWater, Elom
Location: UK
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by Elom »

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.

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]


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]


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]


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 :b40:, she is forced to fill an eye and leave one group with only one liberty.

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.
Last edited by Elom on Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.
Elom
Lives in sente
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:18 am
Rank: OGS 9kyu
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: WindnWater, Elom
Location: UK
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by 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.
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.
Elom
Lives in sente
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:18 am
Rank: OGS 9kyu
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: WindnWater, Elom
Location: UK
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by 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.
Last edited by Elom on Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:28 am, edited 6 times in total.
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by Bill Spight »

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.

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. :)
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Elom
Lives in sente
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:18 am
Rank: OGS 9kyu
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: WindnWater, Elom
Location: UK
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by 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...
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.
Elom
Lives in sente
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:18 am
Rank: OGS 9kyu
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: WindnWater, Elom
Location: UK
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by Elom »

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 :cool: ), 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?
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.
User avatar
Abyssinica
Lives in gote
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:36 am
Rank: Miserable 4k
GD Posts: 0
KGS: STOP STALKING ME
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by Abyssinica »

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 :cool: ), 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
Lives in sente
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:18 am
Rank: OGS 9kyu
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: WindnWater, Elom
Location: UK
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by Elom »

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 :cool: ), 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?'
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.
Elom
Lives in sente
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:18 am
Rank: OGS 9kyu
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: WindnWater, Elom
Location: UK
Has thanked: 568 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Random Ramblings

Post by 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.
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.
Post Reply