More than a lockdown diversion?

[John Fairbairn]

A group of pros in the Nagoya Branch of the Nihon Ki-in - calling themselves the Nagoya Amigo group - have been diverting themselves, and YouTube, fans, during the lockdown by playing a series of matches in unusual formats.

There is one format they have just come back to, and it occurred to me that they may have done so because it worked especially well. Wondering why that might be the case, I got the feeling it's something that could be beneficially copied by amateurs in general.

The format is basically two teams play under a "no resigning" rule and the final score margins, totalled over all boards, are what counts. This is redolent of gambling go, of course, which is normally frowned on by pros, but it's the team aspect that makes the difference, perhaps.

The Nagoya amigos tried this first with pair go, but in their latest venture they tried it with single players in teams of three. One side was, of course, Nagoya Amigos, the other was Three Old Geezers (an allusion to a popular tv series in Japan). One of these old geezers was Michael Redmond (57), incidentally - the others were Ishida Atsushi (50) and Ogata Masaki (56) [Bill: just like policemen and doctors, old geezers are getting younger every year!]

The reason I thought amateurs might like to play this way is that we so often experience games where we play quite well most of the time then make a silly blunder. It makes the previous half hour or whatever feel like such a waste. But being part of a team in a match where every point counts means we could usefully play on and justify all the time we have spent. It's also a way of practising endgame skills, and focusing on an aspect of the game where computers are not necessarily better,

One issue that came up in the latest match that didn't come up before was what happens if you lose on time. The solution was to award a victory by 19 points. It's a peculiar figure to pick, and in the pair go there were several games ending in 40+ point margins, so it looks like an area where mountebanks could prosper. I'd be inclined t make the penalty more like 100 points.

The most important point, though, is that the Old Geezers won by 70 points 28.5. High fives, Bill?

[Knotwilg]

High fives, Bill?

Count me in. Last time I went to the hospital - frequency rising - the count of officials younger than me was 0.

[Bill Spight]

A group of pros in the Nagoya Branch of the Nihon Ki-in - calling themselves the Nagoya Amigo group - have been diverting themselves, and YouTube, fans, during the lockdown by playing a series of matches in unusual formats.

There is one format they have just come back to, and it occurred to me that they may have done so because it worked especially well. Wondering why that might be the case, I got the feeling it's something that could be beneficially copied by amateurs in general.

The format is basically two teams play under a "no resigning" rule and the final score margins, totalled over all boards, are what counts. This is redolent of gambling go, of course, which is normally frowned on by pros, but it's the team aspect that makes the difference, perhaps.

A while back I suggested a possible training method for bots where the players play two game matches, switching sides between games, with the win or loss depending on the total score on the two boards.

The Nagoya amigos tried this first with pair go, but in their latest venture they tried it with single players in teams of three. One side was, of course, Nagoya Amigos, the other was Three Old Geezers (an allusion to a popular tv series in Japan). One of these old geezers was Michael Redmond (57), incidentally - the others were Ishida Atsushi (50) and Ogata Masaki (56) [Bill: just like policemen and doctors, old geezers are getting younger every year!]

In my misspent youth I read an ancient Persian text, in translation, OC, that suggested that geezerhood started at 32. With a life expectancy in the 40s, I guess that makes sense. Maybe there weren't too many geezers back then. The prime age was considered to be 14.

The reason I thought amateurs might like to play this way is that we so often experience games where we play quite well most of the time then make a silly blunder. It makes the previous half hour or whatever feel like such a waste. But being part of a team in a match where every point counts means we could usefully play on and justify all the time we have spent. It's also a way of practising endgame skills, and focusing on an aspect of the game where computers are not necessarily better,

Sounds good to me.

The most important point, though, is that the Old Geezers won by 70 points 28.5. High fives, Bill?

I'll raise a pinky.

[Kirby]

High fives, Bill?

Count me in. Last time I went to the hospital - frequency rising - the count of officials younger than me was 0.

Best wishes for good health.

[lightvector]

Random thought: for losing on time, if the time control is byo-yomi format, perhaps an elegant option would be that you forfeit your turn (the opponent gets to play again) and the game continues on. On your next turn, you're back to having one byo yomi period left.

[Cynosure]

There was a recent 3v3 competition in a similar format for twitch go streamers vs afreeca go streamers. Their take on it had a 50 point penalty for resigning, since there was a greater skill gap than between pros and so to help keep the match relatively even in case one game became too one-sided. It was definitely really fun as a viewer, and I imagine it was for the players as well!

[ez4u]

Random thought: for losing on time, if the time control is byo-yomi format, perhaps an elegant option would be that you forfeit your turn (the opponent gets to play again) and the game continues on. On your next turn, you're back to having one byo yomi period left.

Interesting, but too often two moves in a row = instant death. How about 1 point per second that you go over instead? Then we might get some interesting trade offs. How many points are you willing to pay to read things to the end?

[jann]

Random thought: for losing on time, if the time control is byo-yomi format, perhaps an elegant option would be that you forfeit your turn (the opponent gets to play again) and the game continues on. On your next turn, you're back to having one byo yomi period left.

Interesting, but too often two moves in a row = instant death. How about 1 point per second that you go over instead?

Also forfeiting a turn is a highly random penalty (depends on momentary temperature, though running out of time may happen more often in critical moments). Fixed point(s) per fixed time do sound interesting (could also work in non-byo-yomi format).

[lightvector]

Oooh I like that idea a lot. Fixed points per second or per new byo-yomi period you go into overtime sounds clean and still makes the clock restrictive.

[Bill Spight]

Ing's idea of buying time is reborn.