Life In 19x19

A Gotwo game work like this:
The players play 2 Go games and at the same time.
On the first board black start first.
On the second board white start first.
Both players decide where they will put their stones (or if they will pass) at the same time. So, the 2 boards moves happens in the same time.
If one player win one board, the match doenst stop, they continue playing on the second board.
If some player win both games, he wins the whole match.
If one player win on one board and other player win on the other board. Players compare their scores on the boards they won. The player with the highest score wins the match.
If both players have the same score on the board they won, they play again. Playing 2 simultaneous go games again.
Remember they play both boards at the same time, but both boards are totally separated games, with their own passes, scores.......


Rules:

-This game has the Simultaneous Capture rule.

-To end the game on one board you need 4 consecutive passes on this board.

-Suicide is allowed.

-Handcap works in the normal way, each board with their own handcaps.

-You dont remove the dead stones at the end of the game.

-The game use Stone scoring method.

-Game dont have komi rules.

Which purposes do you suggest for usage of these rules?

Kind of interesting, but also kind of... not?

Anyway, I'm assuming this is to negate the need for komi in an even game? How would handicaps be allowed in the case of disparate strengths?

The first problem I saw with this was the need for four consecutive passes to end the game. I'm assuming this is because it is implied that play has to alternate between the two boards (as in, a player made not make two consecutive plays on the same board). Of course, I also don't like that (if that was your intention). No two games will necessarily last the same length, so would players be forced to play through to the absolute end of both games (ie, a resignation covers both boards, rather than just one board)?

I'm also curious about what you mean by comparing scores in the case of a split game.

Let's take an imaginary scenario:

On board 1, Player A has 60 points, while Player B has 42 points.
On board 2, Player A has 58 points, while Player B has 70 points.

If it's just looking at the individual score, Player B's 70 point win is greater than Player A's 60 point win. However, looking at the differences of the scores, Player A won his game by 18 points, which has greater than than Player B's 12 point advantage on the other board.

And then we come back to resignations. If resignations are allowed on individual boards, how will they factor into the final score? If just one board was resigned? Or if both boards were resigned?

Oh. And then there is also the point about not removing dead stones. What's up with that? I'm guessing this is because you chose stone scoring (which I just looked up on Sensei's...), however, in that case, there shouldn't be any dead stones left. The hole board should be filled, except for two single space eyes per group...

Well, that's what comes to mind right now.

Assuming all these issues are addressed, it might make for an interesting diversion at Go club some slow night when it's just two people, with the necessary two sets....

LocoRon wrote:Kind of interesting, but also kind of... not?

Anyway, I'm assuming this is to negate the need for komi in an even game?

The 2 games in one idea was made to that, so the game has no komi rules.

LocoRon wrote:How would handicaps be allowed in the case of disparate strengths?

It would work like on normal game. The player would have the normal handcaps in both boards.

LocoRon wrote:The first problem I saw with this was the need for four consecutive passes to end the game.

You have to pass 4 times to end, one of the 2 games (so end in one board). If you end one game, you dont need to stop the other.
The game ends after both games end.

LocoRon wrote:I'm assuming this is because it is implied that play has to alternate between the two boards (as in, a player made not make two consecutive plays on the same board).

When you pass, this doenst means that you want end the game. Thats why the 4 pass rule was created.
Also you play on both boards/games at the same time. The first turn on the first and second board happens on the same time, the same with second, third... turns. Until the game end on one board and it continue alone on the second board.

LocoRon wrote:The first problem I saw with this was the need for four consecutive passes to end the game. I'm assuming this is because it is implied that play has to alternate between the two boards (as in, a player made not make two consecutive plays on the same board). Of course, I also don't like that (if that was your intention). No two games will necessarily last the same length, so would players be forced to play through to the absolute end of both games (ie, a resignation covers both boards, rather than just one board)?

If they pass 4 times in one board they just end it on one board and just on this board.
The 4 passes rules was made, because when a guy pass this doenst means that he want to end the game, this would allow players to pass the game but not end it.

LocoRon wrote:I'm also curious about what you mean by comparing scores in the case of a split game.

The idea was that to have 2 games in one to make the game more balanced. Since both players will start the a game first.
The idea of comparing score was made to solve problems when one player win one game and other player wins other.
I could have choosed that when this happens, its a tie and the game restart again. But with this rule many games would take a extreme amount of time to finish.

LocoRon wrote:Let's take an imaginary scenario:

On board 1, Player A has 60 points, while Player B has 42 points.
On board 2, Player A has 58 points, while Player B has 70 points.

If it's just looking at the individual score, Player B's 70 point win is greater than Player A's 60 point win. However, looking at the differences of the scores, Player A won his game by 18 points, which has greater than than Player B's 12 point advantage on the other board.

Your idea of comparing the score differences assume that "winning with style" (so having a higher amount of points than the other player) is the most important thing.

My idea rewards filling the game with stones.

Also I am not 100% sure about my idea. There are more way to compare scores:
-The player that has the highest score on the game he lost. Won the game.
EXAMPLE: Board 1 the score is black 10 and white 12, and board 2 the score is black 20 and white 15. In this game white would win (15 against 10)

Also,
Ideas that assume that both boards are not unique games, with is not the case in my variant.
-Compare sum of player scores on both boards. The player with the highest sum wins the game.

LocoRon wrote:And then we come back to resignations. If resignations are allowed on individual boards, how will they factor into the final score? If just one board was resigned? Or if both boards were resigned?

I will have to think about that.

i am not sure i get your idea... it seems like a two games match, only played parallelly instead of consecutively, with some fancy rules added / changed. if it is so, it is not so great in my opinion

but it gave me another idea - to play a single game of go on two regular boards. all rules would be the same as usually (whatever ko, scoring, etc), only it would be played on an exotic 'board' consisting of two independent squares 19 x 19. at the end you just count the score on both battlefields and the player with more points wins.

A bit of an interesting idea Laman, but mirror Go would be a perfect tie strategy - white would just copy every one of black's moves on the opposite board. You could have one board full of black stones and one board full of white stones, and it would be very boring and stupid. Or, if black is playing on both boards, white could wait for black to make a bad move and then pounce. Meanwhile, black has no counter to this strategy.

Laman wrote:it seems like a two games match, only played parallelly instead of consecutively

yes the two games match was to make a equal game with both players starting at the same time.
The idea of playing parallelly instead of consecutively, is that when you play consecutively both games are not equal because on the second one the players are more tired.