Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 8:00 pm
by Dusk Eagle
It started off fun and interesting, but after a little while it has lost a lot of its luster. I think you captured it best when you said,
Joaz wrote:I guess that the problem is that it lacks a personal feel that go games usually have. It is no longer 'my' game. Many of the moves were ones that I would not have chosen. While I can intellectually appreciate the virtues of those moves, they don't feel like 'my' moves.
That lack of personal investment in the game makes it hard for me to keep interested over long periods of time.
I do think it is an interesting concept, and it seems to reveal how differently we all understand the game. I think I can also say that Magicwand is stronger than the five of us working together . But now, I feel I'm only continuing to contribute out of obligation, and would be fine with stopping.
Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 8:12 pm
by Kirby
I vote 0.5 for resigning, and 0.5 for not resigning.
Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 12:07 pm
by daniel_the_smith
I enjoyed the experiment. I think it's difficult because it requires so much effort to communicate between team members, it's time-consuming, which is why I only checked the sensei's page once per day if that. So, let's resign.
...Also, I want to read Magicwand's commentary ^^
Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 12:43 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Ok, I think we have a majority.
@MW: We resign. Thanks for the game. Sorry that it didn't work as I was hoping.
Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 1:26 pm
by daniel_the_smith
Magicwand wrote:for obs: this is what i would have played. can you see that black is riding the rhythm? what they played is not what i expected from dan level players. i guess 5 low dans = kyu level
$$Bcm38 Prisoners: B 1, W 0 $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . x d . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X X X X . X . . O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O X O X O . . e . . . X . X . . . | $$ | . . O O O X O . . O . O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X O O . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . O . X . . . . . . . X . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . c a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------
[Kirby] When I put my attacking cap on, I want to play 'a' to threaten to connect. If white blocks, then I want to jump out around 'b' to split white apart, and start causing some damage. However, I am somewhat worried about the health of our group on the top. I am worried about white's potential to take away eyespace. For example, Diagram 38.A.1, below...
[JoazBanbeck] I like 'a'. See diagram 38.A.2 below. I like 'c' for the same reason. ( How do we develop the group in the lower left after we play 'a', and he blocks at C9? I like 'c' better when I think of follow-up moves. )
I could really like 'd' if someone could show me that 'x' kills if he tenukis.
[Kirby] Your sequence is convincing to me. If we play something like 'a', It's also possible that white tenukis, and then we'd have to respond to get two eyes (see diagrams).
[daniel the smith] Didn't we determine a while ago that this white move threatens to kill our stones on top?
[JoazBanbeck] Not that I recall. I think that some gang members claimed that it was so, while others - such as myself - remained uncertain. ( Perhaps we didn't have E11 at the time. That would have made escape by white easy. )
BTW, the sooner we play 'b', the harder it is for him to threaten our upper left group, because it threatens to kill more easily as it runs southward.
[Dusk Eagle] I feel lost in this situation. I'll propose probing at ''e''. If he defends on the right, we can drop down to J18 in response to him playing H18. If he defends on the left, we have gained the aji of cutting through his stones on the right.
[JoazBanbeck] Playing at 'e' is too slow IMHO. See diagram 38.E.1. I think we need 'a' or 'b' or 'c'.
[Dusk Eagle] I think we need to add a move to the top side, since white got the coveted 3-3 point. Our group on the left can still escape along the left even after 38.E.1.
[Kirby] I agree with Dusk Eagle that our group will probably survive after 38.E.1, but it'd be too bad to lose out on the chance to split white and attack him. On the other hand, it is hard to attack the top white group severely, since white has forcing moves against the black group on the top. I'm also at a loss. We need to decide on something, though, so I'll vote 0.5 for 'e', and 0.5 for 'a'.
[daniel the smith] 1.0 for ''e''.
[JoazBanbeck] I think that 'e' is aji-keshi, and it strenghthens his top group which weakens the effectiveness of moves like 'b'. I'll support any of 'a', 'b', or 'c'. But eventually we must play 'b'.
To be precise, my vote is negative one against 'e'.
[daniel the smith] I guess that means that DE gets to pick the next move!
[Dusk Eagle] I'm also voting ''e''.
[Kirby] I guess I'll switch to 1.0 for 'e'.
I cannot shake the feeling... what a CRAPPY move. No offense.
Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 2:11 pm
by mw42
Bantari wrote:
I cannot shake the feeling... what a CRAPPY move. No offense.
Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 4:30 pm
by Kirby
daniel_the_smith wrote:... it's time-consuming, which is why I only checked the sensei's page once per day if that...
I wonder if there would have been more communication if the dialog had been held on L19. I suppose that we would have had more clutter in that case, though.
Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 5:42 am
by Magicwand
Joaz Banbeck wrote:Ok, I think we have a majority.
@MW: We resign. Thanks for the game. Sorry that it didn't work as I was hoping.
i would like to play you 1-1 with 2 stone handy if you agree. hopefully this will prove my feeling of how strong others are.
Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 2:54 am
by Mnemonic
Questions to the participants:
1) Do you think the main problem was communication and that this style could be successful if you could communicate better? You could e.i. play a game on a server with unlimited time and talk about it using Skype or teamspeak. Do you think this approach would work?
2) A lot of you seem to feel the one big problem was that you couldn't play "your" game. We have 2 Teamovich going on where you have similar problems (the game evolves radically different from what you expect/want) but it seems the Teamovich idea is a resounding success with the players. Would you feel more comfortable is you played a Teamovich against Magicwand? Do you think there is a significant difference between a Teamovich and the Gang Malkovich Idea?
Re: Gang Malkovich 1: Magicwand vs the Gang of Five
Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 7:17 am
by Kirby
I think that communication was a big problem. I visited L19 more than senseis, and just checked senseis periodically.
I don't think my mind was usually changed a lot by the arguments given by other people. I felt like I'd propose a move, and someone might like another move better, and I'd feel like, "Oh you like that move better? Okay, whatever.".
Also, this game did not really have accountability. In 1-on-1 Malkovich games, I feel more inclined to try harder to come up with a good move, because if I play stupidly, I am humiliated. With a group of players like this, I can feel like, "Ah well, it's not all my fault. They voted for moves, too.".
. But now, I feel I'm only continuing to contribute out of obligation, and would be fine with stopping.