Atari-Go with gomoku?
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:25 am
Would it be useful to only use atari-go as a method of teaching when in tandem with gomoku? Perhaps they may offset each other's possible negative side effects for go.
Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/
Is Atari-go the same as Capture-go ( = Capture-1 ) ?Atari go is a variant of go with similar strategy.
Are there some objective reasons no passing is better ?It is best to play atari go with no passing. If a player has no play, they lose
Code: Select all
Oh, we used to play this all the time!
Great! Then I don't have to explain the rules!
Well, maybe a refresher wouldn't hurt...
Sure! ( time passes )
Oh! We played this differently...
Could you show me how you played it ? ( time passes )
Oh, I see. :) You were playing Pente, not Go. :)Yes.EdLee wrote:Hi Bill,Is Atari-go the same as Capture-go ( = Capture-1 ) ?Atari go is a variant of go with similar strategy.
Almost every form of no pass go has a kind of territory. I. e., points where one player can play with impunity but the other player cannot. That leads to the correspondence between moves and points of territory. No pass capture go, then, provides a natural way for a beginner to learn about territory. Also, the frequent question about why isn't it advantageous to play inside the opponent's territory, forcing him to fill his own territory to capture the stone or stones, does not arise, because with no passes there is no such gain.Are there some objective reasons no passing is better ?It is best to play atari go with no passing. If a player has no play, they lose
Since I never knew about this no-passing variant ( until reading about it on this forum some years ago ), I've never tried it.
This way ( Capture-N with passing ), if the beginner can get a tie with the more experienced person, I congratulate them ( as opposed to losing ).
When teaching beginners, I have lost SO many games of Atari-Go because at some point I forgot it was Atari-Go and I played some throw-inBill Spight wrote:[…] In a way, the Capture Game is even more strategical than regular go.
A tie happens when neither side can reach N captures in Capture-N (passes optional and OK).How does a tie happen in Capture-One? What I have observed is that the teacher simply counts territory. Why not just keep playing and teach territory that way?
Nice teaching moments. (They win and feel happy, and both of you learn something new.I played some throw-in
Well, as I said, No pass capture go has an inherent concept of territory which is like that of regular go. (It's really territory scoring with a group tax.EdLee wrote:I have nothing for or against the no-pass-and-continue-to-count variant; it's unclear to me why one version has to be any better than another. So far, from my experience, Capture-1 with pass has worked very nicely. Only until the recent post here, I never knew about Capture-N where N>1 ; also, I wasn't clear what's N ( N stones or N occurences of capture ? ). We went with the latter in our most recent try.
And a big laugh for all of us each time it happened. And of course I explained to them why I played there, so they really learned something new. Whether I learned something new … I don't know, especially b/c it happened to me so often …EdLee wrote:Hi Tom,Nice teaching moments. (They win and feel happy, and both of you learn something new.I played some throw-in)
Nice storyEdLee wrote:Hi Bill,Is Atari-go the same as Capture-go ( = Capture-1 ) ?Atari go is a variant of go with similar strategy.
Now you've given me the idea for Atari-state go (stone in atari? You lose.)
EdLee wrote:Are there some objective reasons no passing is better ?It is best to play atari go with no passing. If a player has no play, they lose
Since I never knew about this no-passing variant ( until reading about it on this forum some years ago ), I've never tried it.
This way ( Capture-N with passing ), if the beginner can get a tie with the more experienced person, I congratulate them ( as opposed to losing ).
Elom, this is the first time I hear about gomoku in relation to the teaching of Go... other than this chat with curious bystanders:I don't have any strong anecdotal evidence one way or the other, but my feeling is mixing Pente with Go for raw beginners is not helpful for teaching Go ?Code: Select all
Oh, we used to play this all the time! Great! Then I don't have to explain the rules! Well, maybe a refresher wouldn't hurt... Sure! ( time passes ) Oh! We played this differently... Could you show me how you played it ? ( time passes ) Oh, I see. :) You were playing Pente, not Go. :)
I was one of those who thought that starting raw beginners off on Capture Go was not good because it encouraged the bad habit of trying to capture stones. Two things changed my mind. The first was hearing about someone who taught Capture Go to a class of school kids one day and then let them play among themselves. One little girl became invincible by simply keeping her stones connected.Elom wrote:My feeling with pente I share with yours— I played a few games a while back, and thought it might reduce my awareness for stones in atari in go. Which is, as far as I know, the opposite of the disputed effect some worry for when teaching via atari-go, namely, an over-focus on capturing stones (as Bill Spight mentioned, capture-N go's similarity to territorial go increases with N, which should alay such a fear at least to some extent)
It's even more like Stone Counting.jlt wrote:You may also want to try the Strasbourg rules. Passing is allowed. The winner is the player who has the largest number of stones on the board. This is more or less equivalent to regular go with territory scoring and a group tax.