Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/
Shapenaji, for the purposes of the question, imagine that you're playing...GOOD SHAPENAJI. He knows everything you know and plays the same way, but good.hyperpape wrote:Shapenaji, for the purposes of the question, imagine that you're playing...EVIL SHAPENAJI. He knows everything you know and plays the same way, but evil.
Well, isn't the point of the pie rule to make a single game even?ez4u wrote:
Imagine the following choices:
1. A Center-oriented opening move:
1a Play it
1b Play against it with no komi
2. A Territory-oriented opening move:
2a Play it
2b Play against it with no komi
Assuming that you are in a situation where you are making the first play turn by turn in a series of games, where would the advantage be? You are better at one, which you can take advantage of when you are choosing the initial play, and your opponent is better at the other, which they can take advantage of in turn. Of course you can assume that there is no repetition, but then you have described why the pie rule does not work in Go, right? It confers an unfair advantage to a knowledgeable player, where the relevant knowledge consists of an understanding of your opponent's style. Alternatively you can imagine situations such as you are better at center-oriented play and your opponent is not better at territory-oriented play, but then haven't you simply described being stronger than your opponent? I am probably missing the point here somewhere.
hyperpape wrote:Shapenaji, for the purposes of the question, imagine that you're playing...EVIL SHAPENAJI. He knows everything you know and plays the same way, but evil.
Playing your double seems like one of the few times the pie rule should result in an even start. (That or ignorance of your opponent)tchan001 wrote: Shapenaji, for the purposes of the question, imagine that you're playing...GOOD SHAPENAJI. He knows everything you know and plays the same way, but good.
OK, I have been writing at cross purposes to your original post. As an approach for a single game, I agree with your logic. I also agree with your assertion that it is not an even trade.shapenaji wrote:Well, isn't the point of the pie rule to make a single game even?ez4u wrote:
Imagine the following choices:
1. A Center-oriented opening move:
1a Play it
1b Play against it with no komi
2. A Territory-oriented opening move:
2a Play it
2b Play against it with no komi
Assuming that you are in a situation where you are making the first play turn by turn in a series of games, where would the advantage be? You are better at one, which you can take advantage of when you are choosing the initial play, and your opponent is better at the other, which they can take advantage of in turn. Of course you can assume that there is no repetition, but then you have described why the pie rule does not work in Go, right? It confers an unfair advantage to a knowledgeable player, where the relevant knowledge consists of an understanding of your opponent's style. Alternatively you can imagine situations such as you are better at center-oriented play and your opponent is not better at territory-oriented play, but then haven't you simply described being stronger than your opponent? I am probably missing the point here somewhere.
A series of games is already even, you just alternate black and white.
I'm still struggling with this idea. I'm hyper-territorial, but I think I'd take a center-oriented move over playing second. I wouldn't be comfortable, but I think I'd still be better off against an opponent of my own strength.shapenaji wrote:Also, following up that thought,
I don't think the pie rule is an even trade. If I know anything about my opponent, it will cease to be a balance, because I can play a move that I know works well with my style, but poorly with my opponent's.
As a result, there is still an advantage to the first move.
Bill Spight wrote:If I think of a suboptimal opening move for go, it is not easy to find one that is worth just the right amount. And then the game may look strange. But a three move pie sequence allows more scope, both for finding moves and for finding an inefficient combination.
topazg wrote:There are some rather elegant extensions to the pie rule which I think could work quite nicely for Go, like the opening rules for Renju (Gomoku, or 5 in a row, but in a way that is not hugely advantageous - and arguably solved as a win to the starting player):
shapenaji wrote:I could use a different pie rule to illustrate this,
What if I let one player play the first 40 moves. And then let the other player choose after that?
This is an interesting comparison. The one problem I see with it is that tennis solves the problem of the first move advantage by playing a series of games. In go that isn't in option (in an amateur tournament or casual play), so some other solution must be found. I tend to agree that komi is the best one.jts wrote:
I think we can see how unsatisfying the pie rule is by thinking about how its application would work in a game like tennis. Good tennis players spend years perfecting their serve: learning to place it precisely, getting power and spin, and thinking about how the game will develop from the initial serve. Likewise, they spend a lot of time practicing returning serves, and getting good at that. The game of tennis is built around the player with first-move advantage trying to use that advantage to the hilt, and the other player trying to resist it, and the kinetic ballet that develops from that interaction.
So then if someone comes to me and tells me that playing sets has disadvantages, and he has a way to stop time immediately after the serve so that the second player can decide whether he would rather return the serve or let his opponent return it, and that henceforth tennis will be about having the most mediocre serve possible, so that neither player has any advantage... what do you think I would say about that? What would you say? What would serious tennis players say?
Jedo wrote:This is an interesting comparison. The one problem I see with it is that tennis solves the problem of the first move advantage by playing a series of games. In go that isn't in option (in an amateur tournament or casual play), so some other solution must be found. I tend to agree that komi is the best one.jts wrote:
I think we can see how unsatisfying the pie rule is by thinking about how its application would work in a game like tennis. Good tennis players spend years perfecting their serve: learning to place it precisely, getting power and spin, and thinking about how the game will develop from the initial serve. Likewise, they spend a lot of time practicing returning serves, and getting good at that. The game of tennis is built around the player with first-move advantage trying to use that advantage to the hilt, and the other player trying to resist it, and the kinetic ballet that develops from that interaction.
So then if someone comes to me and tells me that playing sets has disadvantages, and he has a way to stop time immediately after the serve so that the second player can decide whether he would rather return the serve or let his opponent return it, and that henceforth tennis will be about having the most mediocre serve possible, so that neither player has any advantage... what do you think I would say about that? What would you say? What would serious tennis players say?
How... is that like a pie rule? I see rallying for serve as far closer to flipping your racket than "you slice, I choose".Mef wrote: Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.
jts wrote:How... is that like a pie rule? I see rallying for serve as far closer to flipping your racket than "you slice, I choose".Mef wrote: Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.
Well, since either player can chose to simply not hit the ball, that means that on the third shot, the player must try to hit the ball in such a way that:jts wrote:How... is that like a pie rule? I see rallying for serve as far closer to flipping your racket than "you slice, I choose".Mef wrote: Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.
