Life In 19x19

Suji wrote:

hailthorn011 wrote:I think it'd be fun to try a game using these rules. I like the idea of the neutral stone. Anyone want to try?

Agreed, but how would players play it if they could only play online? Malkovich game?

That's what I had in mind. Probably should have made that clearer lol

hailthorn011 wrote:

Suji wrote:

hailthorn011 wrote:I think it'd be fun to try a game using these rules. I like the idea of the neutral stone. Anyone want to try?

Agreed, but how would players play it if they could only play online? Malkovich game?

That's what I had in mind. Probably should have made that clearer lol

This idea could be interesting...but I think there's a lot of weird implications to neutral go...One example is this invasion:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc W3 is a neutral stone
$$ --------------
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . a . 5 . |
$$ . . X 2 * . . |
$$ . . . 1 X b . |
$$ . . . 4 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |[/go]

Here is alive, and W will have a follow up at A or B.

If B gets tricky....

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc W3 is R17, W5 is Q17
$$ --------------
$$ . . a . b . . |
$$ . . . * . 4 . |
$$ . . X 2 * . . |
$$ . . . 1 X . c |
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |[/go]

prevents the living stone, but after a second neutral stone one of A, B or C will live (because B must leave a point around each neutral stone open....

B gets really tricky....

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc W3 is R17, B4 is S18
$$ --------------
$$ . . . . . . . |
$$ . . 6 5 . * . |
$$ . . X 2 * . . |
$$ . . . 1 X 7 . |
$$ . . 9 . 8 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . |[/go]

B cannot capture both and ......my brain hurts just trying to wrap my head around this...

Edit - my wires are totally crossed in my last diagram didn't make sense, I've since changed it (=

I can see why you'd say that lol. Still, I think it'd be fun to try, at least. Maybe on 9x9 and see how that goes.

hailthorn011 wrote:I can see why you'd say that lol. Still, I think it'd be fun to try, at least. Maybe on 9x9 and see how that goes.

I'd be up for a 9x9 game, if we can get the rules straightened out.

I really think that the neutral stones should be a limited resource. Perhaps you might want to settle on a number of neutral stones you each get at the beginning of the game, and that's it.

For a 9x9 game, I like the idea of giving 2 neutral stones each. It's such a small board that locally a neutral stone can be devastating to the entire game. For 19x19, something like 6 neutral stones each would be a good place to start, I think. This might actually be too many neutral stones in both cases, but experimentation is required.

Marcus wrote:I really think that the neutral stones should be a limited resource. Perhaps you might want to settle on a number of neutral stones you each get at the beginning of the game, and that's it.

For a 9x9 game, I like the idea of giving 2 neutral stones each. It's such a small board that locally a neutral stone can be devastating to the entire game. For 19x19, something like 6 neutral stones each would be a good place to start, I think. This might actually be too many neutral stones in both cases, but experimentation is required.

Good idea. Might be worth a shot. It's probably good to limit something like that. Neutral stones could be quite powerful.

Marcus wrote:I really think that the neutral stones should be a limited resource. Perhaps you might want to settle on a number of neutral stones you each get at the beginning of the game, and that's it.

For a 9x9 game, I like the idea of giving 2 neutral stones each. It's such a small board that locally a neutral stone can be devastating to the entire game. For 19x19, something like 6 neutral stones each would be a good place to start, I think. This might actually be too many neutral stones in both cases, but experimentation is required.

Limiting the number of neutral stones is probably a good idea, as far as the strength goes. It would limit the power of the neutral stones and make people have to think to use them.