Life In 19x19

We do not know if 19x19 is perfect but, from a human view, it is about the most demanding size still suitable in duration for human play.

Square grid allows for a strategically dynamic game. Maybe other grids would fit, too. We do not know any better fitting grid structure yet though.

Square board is regular enough and convex so that there are no boring remote parts, which implicitly would simplify global strategy. Due to the square grid, a rectangular board minimizes the number of corners in the board shape. Therefore a rectangular board is optimal for a square grid. As a finer consideration, a square board is optimal for a square grid so that none of the edges is less interesting than other edges. Board symmetry maximizes global strategic interaction consistently.

Odd square board sizes have the advantage of the existence of a single center intersection. Maybe this feature is over-estimated though. In the following, I presume a preference for odd sizes.

19x19 is known by every advanced player to be more interesting than 17x17. The next question is if 21x21 is more interesting than 19x19. Since 21x21 has been tried only rarely so far, we cannot be sure. One theory says that bigger boards lead to too long and boring endgames but this could simply be a consequence of our missing better understanding of bigger boards. Therefore currently the game duration is the decisive limiting factor.

19x19 suffices to require a lifetime to master it, as they say.

Li Kao wrote:You might find arimaa interesting too.

It is in some ways simpler than chess, but really checkers is closer to meeting my requirements than it is (and that's not very close).

ramanujan wrote: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?

I mostly agree with Robert on the reasoning for 19x19. See the Sensei's article "Different Sized Boards" for more information. Why did you say "Something else you didn't address..."? What else do you believe I have left out? Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning?

i think just about any connection game can be applied to a 3d board easily and with interesting results.

for example, lines of action; each piece moves like a queen, but the number of squares it can move is determined by the number of pieces along that line. a 6x6 board with a border row where the pieces start off, and the first player to connect all thier pieces win.

in the 3d version, i imagine a 3 player game, one player going top to bottom, another from left to right, and the third from forward to back. perhaps 5x5x5 rather than 6x6x6.

Yes, but again, this violates rule 4.

not sure i agree komi is nessicary to make a game interesting.
any game with movement generally has no point scoring, giving the first player a slight advantage.
however, having a slight advantage is no garentee to win, not by a long shot. in the 3d version, where you have 3 players, the other two players could easily gang up on player 1, making the game unfair for him.

even in go where you have komi, black wins 52% of the time. is that fair?

phillip1882 wrote:even in go where you have komi, black wins 52% of the time. is that fair?

If you add komi bidding then go should end with a draw with perfect play on both sides.

Is there reason to believe chess isn't a draw with perfect play?

hyperpape wrote:Is there reason to believe chess isn't a draw with perfect play?

No, it is likely that it is. But this does not necessarily hold true for all movement based games.

was reading an interesting artcle about Hex http://maarup.net/thomas/hex/
and that names 6 conditions for "a game of real value"
(to avoid confusing relettered to A - F)

A. Fair
B. Progressive
C. Finite
D. Clear
E. Strategic
F. Decisive

or in a more detail:


A Fair: the players for all intents and purposes must be equal;
B Rrogressive, it ought not to tend to move in circles;
C Finite, after a limited period or number of moves this progression must reach its
conclusion;
D Clear, it must be easy to comprehend
E Stratigic, no move is to stir up the situation, turning
all advantages to disadvantages and vice versa, making it impossible to plan
regularly winning tactics.
F Decisive, the game must not have a tendency to end in a draw.


I myself disagree with condition F, if both players play optimal a draw is the best result. (otherwise the game is skewed)

willemien wrote:F Decisive, the game must not have a tendency to end in a draw.

I myself disagree with condition F, if both players play optimal a draw is the best result. (otherwise the game is skewed)

I agree that a draw with perfect play is fair. But if there is a skill differential the stronger player should win most games. And not something 80% draw, 15% stronger wins and 5% weaker wins. I think this condition is trying to avoid the problem with chess where very large part of high level games ends as a draw.

And yet, ironically, it is the condition that makes Hex worse than Go.

I apologize for coming into this thread so late, and also I want to state that as a beginner to Go, I may not be the perfect person to offer opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of Go. That being said, like many, I have played board games my entire life.

The first thought on this whole thread is that there is no "perfect" game, or even a better game. There are the games we like, and the games other people like. We like Go, others like chess, shogi, xian-qi, stratego, etc. Heck, I expect that many people who play Go, like and enjoy other games as well (I know my wife and I have recently been enjoying cribbage which isn't a board game at all...). Thus any "rules" that are posted must by necessity be personal rules. The only real exception is that, for adults, there must be enough depth (either in variety of play or strategic depth) to keep the game interesting over a long period of time. Thus British Draughts/American Checkers, with simple rules and compared to Go or Chess simple positions, can and is a subject of deep study for its fans. At the same time, there are numerous people who love war games that violate every rule posted here as well as including random elements as well. All games that find people who love them are good games.

That being said, I think Komi and scoring are actually potentially weak areas in Go as a game. These two aspects of the game can make the game hard to understand for people who are new to it. Checkers and chess have clear, easy to understand end points. In Go, the final outcome of a match may not be decided until several minutes after play has ended.

Final thought, comparing hex and Go... I think each has their own advantages. I have never played Hex, and I suspect that the amount of analysis that has been done, while more than many games, is far too small to really appreciate what complexity and depth is in the game.

--
Bill

@MarylandBill

Sorry, this is off-topic, but everytime I read your signature I can't help but think "why does it only say "Bill" and make no mention of "Mary L."?

@MarylandBill The essence of this discussion has cropped up again in this thread, so I won't repeat any of those arguments here. If you don't feel that my posts there are a complete answer to what you have said, then you may clarify your disagreement here.

mw42 wrote:@MarylandBill

Sorry, this is off-topic, but everytime I read your signature I can't help but think "why does it only say "Bill" and make no mention of "Mary L."?

Not Mary Land, Maryland. Its the state (in the United States) I live in. I use it in my online ID since Bill is a pretty common name, and I use the same name in other forums, thus I don't have to remember a dozen different ids. Bill is who I am .

--
Bill