pi rule instead of komi for go?

[Matti]

If one is looking for ideas to replace komi, here is one. Play two games with alternate colours. Add the results of both games. The player who has the higher total score wins. The first game is a bit different from traditional game, because one might settle to lose a little instead of taking a big risk. But the second is not. A similar idea is been used in football, ice hockey, etc. matches.

How do you score resignations?

I assume a resignation would be for the entire match - that is, the first game is played until the end whatever happens.

It might also make sense to equal a, say, 50-point defeat with a resignation. This way, you might catch a draw by crushing your opponent in the second game even after resigning. But since players would never resign the first game anyway, I don't think it would change much.

Both are viable options. Another one is, that a player may for example state:"I offer a resignation as 40 points win for you".

[hgj11]

If one is looking for ideas to replace komi, here is one. Play two games with alternate colours. Add the results of both games. The palyer who has the higher total score wins. The first game is a bit different from traditional game, because one might settle to lose a little instead of taking a big risk. But the second is not. A similar idea is been used in football, ice hockey, etc. matches.

Using two boards could be another interesting variation.

Black places his/her first move to one of the boards.
Next, the two player alternately play one stone to both boards.
When they agree finishing on one of the boards, they continue the game on the other one with "normal" play.
Finally, they count the sum of the scores on the two boards.

This version eliminates the "using" of the knowledge of the result of the first game in the fuseki of the second one.

[Mike Novack]

The problem with schemes like that (any that take into account the point count margin of victory) is that they fundamentally change the game.

It is precisely the fact that the margin of victory DOESN'T matter that leads to the exciting fights we see in high level games. That's because it "pays" (is the correct strategy for) the player who is behind even slightly to take desperate risks to pull the game out.

Suppose instead "score matters". Let's say we had a match, with the winner of the match being the player with the highest score total of all the games added up. The play would not be exciting. It would NOT pay for the player who was a couple points behind in one of the games to take the risk of losing by 40 points in exchange for a couple percent likelihood of winning by a point or two.

Remember, we shouldn't use the strategy of kyu players to think about what is good for go. At the levels of play closer to beginner proper strategy if behind might well be "just keep as close as you can" because BOTH players will likely be making mistakes worth 10-20 points before the game is over.

[Sennahoj]

It is precisely the fact that the margin of victory DOESN'T matter that leads to the exciting fights we see in high level games.

I'm not sure this is true --- I remember reading somewhere that in settings where the margin of victory matters, games tend to involve a lot of risk, because both players have an incentive to try to get "more" all the time, no matter who is leading

[Mike Novack]

It is precisely the fact that the margin of victory DOESN'T matter that leads to the exciting fights we see in high level games.

I'm not sure this is true --- I remember reading somewhere that in settings where the margin of victory matters, games tend to involve a lot of risk, because both players have an incentive to try to get "more" all the time, no matter who is leading

In a game where margin of victory matters, it is correct to accept SOME more risk to increase the result. One compares the likelihood of increasing the margin to decreasing it.

In a game where the margin of victory doesn't matter, it is correct to accept ANY level of risk to possibly pull the game out. In other words, the cost of losing by an even larger margin is zero.