74 | 
96You got that figured out fast. Though my experience is limited, I've encountered that phenomenon regularly.topazg wrote:I think that's where the strategy becomes interesting. Evaluating the difference between following suit or expanding is complex, particularly as the territory potential of groups is variable, so even though you may have more groups and thus more stones to place per turn, that doesn't necessarily correlate to the expected total net points of (group * moves) due to the limit of expansion that each group has.
Tactical involvement often requires sticking to growth, often longer than one would wish with regard to the simultaneous developments elsewhere on the board. That may be a principal difference with one-move-per-turn games.topazg wrote:The fact you then required a set number of multi-moves to kill it guaranteed the life in the top left corner as well, which was something I had been struggling on how to achieve without having to use a single-stone move.
My thoughts exactly: invade late and you'll be too latetopazg wrote:The quest for life is actually remarkably hard for an invading stone. Not least because your opponent can make go-nonsense moves to kill it (such as contact playing a 3rd line stone on the 2nd line). Because the typical moves consist of extensions, it's remarkably hard to place killing moves without losing the momentum of multiple stones, and as your opponent has other groups around if its an invasion, that means you end up making less stones for your group per move than your opponent gets towards killing it and removing eyespace. All of which increases the importance of well placed early stones.
I'm not quite sure there, but then, I'm not an expert by any measure in either game.topazg wrote:I think strategically I'm still a fledgeling at this game, but the progress so far is intuitively strengthening my opinion that territorially placed early stones are more valuable than influential ones. The nature of the extension game makes it even harder to quickly mark out central territory than it is in Go I think.
I understand organic games ('enspirited' mechanisms as I see them) quite well, conceptually, and I can often foresee the resolution and general nature of their intricacies. Apart from the multi-move implications that place it a different class to begin with, I see that Sygo strategy and tactics are less intricate than in Go. Go paints with a much finer brush in a much higher resolution. But that doesn' make Sygo strategy any less difficult and maybe even more slippery.
Nor does it make me any better as a player
.
