Life In 19x19

nagano wrote:

palapiku wrote:I don't think komi is a compelling argument

Then how would you refute my argument? I don't think the Pie rule and simultaneous play work that well if you analyze them.

Because I think the whole issue is not important. People play chess without any problems.

You could argue that go is broken, not chess, because go needs komi and chess doesn't.

palapiku wrote:

nagano wrote:

palapiku wrote:I don't think komi is a compelling argument

Then how would you refute my argument? I don't think the Pie rule and simultaneous play work that well if you analyze them.

Because I think the whole issue is not important. People play chess without any problems.

You could argue that go is broken, not chess, because go needs komi and chess doesn't.

Okay, so you don't really disagree with my argument, you just don't think it's important, right? Actually I think Chess needs something like komi, but its structure prevents it. This is one of the basic flaws cited in my original post.

palapiku wrote:Also, komi does not make the sides equal. The roles of Black and White are still fundamentally different. If you want true fairness, you need simultaneous play (cumbersome but feasible with a board; trivial with computers). Surely some game with simultaneous play is "more perfect" than Go?

What if both players want to play on the same point (as they often do), how would that work with simultaneous play?

If you want a fair game you can play it twice, alternating colours. The final score being the number of games won. It'll result in more draws, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Ben wrote:What if both players want to play on the same point (as they often do), how would that work with simultaneous play?

If we're talking about games in general - you could design a game in such a way that this is legal.
If we're talking about Go, see http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/go/variants.html#simul - not really very practical.

palapiku wrote:People play chess without any problems.

Well, I don't consider 30% draws at the top professional level to be "without any problems".

Ben wrote:It'll result in more draws, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Why would you want more draws if you could avoid it? In a game like Go, draws occur when players play almost equally well, and thus it is rather rare. In Chess, on the other hand, draws often occur because e.g. the position gets blocked, etc. This is why draws are so common in Chess; it's not that all the players are so equal.

Side note: the idea that stones are the simplest elementary particle and have two different "frequencies" (black and white), roughly corresponds to string theory. So, if string theory is ever proven, it could be said that Go is such a good game because it has the same structural basis as the universe.

And if it turned out that truth of the (old?) standard model was a brute fact, in the sense that it couldn't be further explained, then we'd prefer a game with a dozen or more different pieces, each of which had seemingly arbitrary powers and rules?

hyperpape wrote:And if it turned out that truth of the (old?) standard model was a brute fact, in the sense that it couldn't be further explained, then we'd prefer a game with a dozen or more different pieces, each of which had seemingly arbitrary powers and rules?

Uh... no.

I agree with a lot of your principles for good board game design. In fact I'd say most of your other rules can boil down to applications of #5 (All rules must be simple as possible) and #6 (Enough variation to challenge humans).

1) One type of unit, of two opposite "charges"
Certainly the fewer unit types is simpler (#5). There are actually games with only one unit type for both players, i.e. nim, dots & boxes, but those tend to be too easy. So we have two types, maybe the smallest number with a good challenge (#6).

2) 2 dimensions
Again, 3D or higher seems very complicated for board games (and even other games), so it's out (#5). 1D is out by (#6) (although maybe a 1D game could be challenging?)

3) No Movement
Obvious application of (#5). Actually hex has less movement than go; in go stones are added AND removed!

4) komi
If you mean komi specifically, I'm not sure that's actually a design principle. I think maybe a better rule is something like "equally challenging for both players" (an application of #6). There was some discussion about draws, and maybe too many draws are bad, but komi doesn't have to prevent draws, only if you add 0.5. Some people would argue that perfect play SHOULD give a draw. If Black plays perfectly, should he lose by 0.5? Should white? As a side note, tic-tac-toe with pie rule is a draw, just like normal tic-tac-toe. And hex can never be a draw, even with pie-rule.

To me, the absolute simplest game that has playable complexity is actually hex. But I still prefer go, because I think overall the challenge and enjoyment is greater. But as palapiku says, that could be a result of the community, not the game itself (although I doubt it).

nagano wrote:So the game needs to have:
1. One type of unit, of two opposite "charges".
2. Two dimensions.
3. No movement.
4. Komi.
5. All rules must be simple as possible to avoid unnecessary complication.
6. Enough variation to challenge humans.

Here is a go like game, Gone (See http://senseis.xmp.net/?AntiAtariGo ), that meets all of the requirements except #4,

Gone is played like go, but with these rules:

1) No pass allowed.
2) No capture allowed.
3) No suicide allowed.
4) If you have no move, you lose.

It is surprisingly difficult.

emeraldemon wrote:I agree with a lot of your principles for good board game design. In fact I'd say most of your other rules can boil down to applications of #5 (All rules must be simple as possible) and #6 (Enough variation to challenge humans).

1) One type of unit, of two opposite "charges"
Certainly the fewer unit types is simpler (#5). There are actually games with only one unit type for both players, i.e. nim, dots & boxes, but those tend to be too easy. So we have two types, maybe the smallest number with a good challenge (#6).

That does not matter, as long as all game pieces have equal ability.

2) 2 dimensions
Again, 3D or higher seems very complicated for board games (and even other games), so it's out (#5). 1D is out by (#6) (although maybe a 1D game could be challenging?)

You have no idea how complicated 3D is. Try this. As far as 1D is concerned, it would have to be an awfully long line to allow for much variation.

3) No Movement
Obvious application of (#5). Actually hex has less movement than go; in go stones are added AND removed!

Yes, but no stone is ever moved from point a to point b, so that is irrelevant.

4) komi
If you mean komi specifically, I'm not sure that's actually a design principle. I think maybe a better rule is something like "equally challenging for both players" (an application of #6). There was some discussion about draws, and maybe too many draws are bad, but komi doesn't have to prevent draws, only if you add 0.5. Some people would argue that perfect play SHOULD give a draw. If Black plays perfectly, should he lose by 0.5? Should white? As a side note, tic-tac-toe with pie rule is a draw, just like normal tic-tac-toe. And hex can never be a draw, even with pie-rule.

No, komi isn't a design principle in itself. It's just the only method that currently exists that is sufficient. Uh... about those Tic-Tak-Toe comments. I believe that I wrote Tic-Tak-Toe, but was thinking of Hex. If you look at my analysis and apply it to Hex, it is valid.

To me, the absolute simplest game that has playable complexity is actually hex. But I still prefer go, because I think overall the challenge and enjoyment is greater. But as palapiku says, that could be a result of the community, not the game itself (although I doubt it).

I would agree, if it were not for the fact that I'm dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the pie rule and don't know of any usable method other than basing the game on scoring.

I think that Amazons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Amazons ) is the kind of game you are looking for, even though it involves movement.

Bill Spight wrote:I think that Amazons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Amazons ) is the kind of game you are looking for, even though it involves movement.

Hmm... yeah, if you add komi to it, it looks fine. Though it does have a minor "flaw" in allowing diagonal movement. So it doesn't *quite* meet my criteria.

You might find arimaa interesting too. It seems to be the closest to your principles I've seen so far for a game that's still using moving pieces in a chess like manner.

While there are different pieces they only differ in strength, and not in movement type. So it comes close to the ideal of a chess type game with only one piece.

The first move advantage is reduces by the second player choosing his starting formations after the first one. This is obviously not as fine tunable as komi. On the other hand the variable piece placement makes a variation using the rule that one player places them, and the other chooses the side viable and interesting.

Something else you didn't adress when you said you concluded that go was the best game was the board size. your criteria dont discuss board size at all. what makes 19x19 perfect?