topazg wrote:I actually suspect there'll be a large amount or "remaining moves move parity" issues, and I wonder how many times the game will actually be lost because one side killed himself to remove his final stones. 50% of the time between skilled players maybe?
Closer to 100% of the time. That's how you lose. You don't play as well, you don't get as many eyes, and you have to off yourself.
Re: Red, a Go variant
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:07 am
by MarkSteere
hyperpape wrote:One player (White) is behind in eyes, so he must either capture his own stones or allow them to be captured first. This creates an empty space on the board, surrounded by Black and Red stones. The only rational play is for White to play in that space. But since that space is surrounded by Black stones with multiple eyes and/or Red stones, these stones are just waiting to be captured. If Black can make even one eye in the space vacated, he is ahead for the next capture. If not, he retains whatever advantage in eyes he had before the first capture, possibly minus one, thanks to parity considerations.
You hit the nail on the head, hyperpape. When I played Redstone, this is exactly what happened to me. If you're an inferior player and you lose a group, you're not going to turn it around. You're done. Might as well resign at that point.
Re: Red, a Go variant
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:37 am
by hyperpape
That said, games won by .5 or 1.5 are quite common in high level go. I can't find a really high quality estimate, but here's one indicator: http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi%2FStatistics.
Re: Red, a Go variant
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:13 am
by Bill Spight
Despite the possibility of a seki involving stones of one player and red stones, I think that the group tax is still 2. (There may be rare exceptions.)
I suspect that strategy is similar to regular no pass go. Big eyes are worth something, but not as much as in regular go.
[go]$$Bcm11 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X 0 . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]
Yes, I think I'm also understanding it a bit better now. Since first one forced to suicide a group loses, it becomes very similar to no-pass go. In which case the number of groups actually doesn't matter (in fact, group tax hurts).
Re: Red, a Go variant
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:03 pm
by topazg
$$Bcm21 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------
[go]$$Bcm21 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]
illluck wrote:Yes, I think I'm also understanding it a bit better now. Since first one forced to suicide a group loses, it becomes very similar to no-pass go. In which case the number of groups actually doesn't matter (in fact, group tax hurts).
I'm not entirely sure if that's true (though not entirely sure if it's not). It seems to come down to the number of independent eyes each player has, which effectively becomes the number of legal players the opponent has before he has to suicide a group. After the group suicides, it then comes down to how many new eyes are creatable in the resulting shape - certainly, losing groups really hurts, but I don't think it's going to be quite the same as first to lose a group loses. As such, making internal moves that gain the potential for a couple of extra eyes are going to be valuable, as are dead invasions that are on key shape points in the opponent's territory.
Re: Red, a Go variant
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:44 pm
by illluck
$$Bcm21 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X O 2 . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------
[go]$$Bcm21 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X O 2 . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]
The issue is that once opponent captures there is almost no way to prevent a lot of eyes for the opponent since the surrounding stones will all be the opponent's?
Re: Red, a Go variant
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:08 pm
by topazg
$$Bcm21 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . 7 5 6 . 8 . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X 9 . . . X . . | $$ | . . X O 2 . . . . . . | $$ | . . 3 . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . O 4 . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------
) viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5514