A unique perspective on Go
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:43 pm
Go has had a major impact on my life, even though I never at any time wanted to play it. Just learning of Go was enough to kick off an excursion in game design. I think it was the equipment and the mystique as much as the rule set.
Now, coming full circle, I've accidentally designed a Go variant. I initially called it Cancer, and reluctantly posted it textually without diagrams. I didn't want it, but the Go community might have found the rule set conceptually interesting. In response to complaints, now it's Redstone. I played Redstone a few times (only after posting the rules), just to be a good sport. The last time playing, I informed my opponent "Sorry, I can't handle this any longer," and resigned.
Normally my new designs are met with silence, except when they're scoffed at. I haven't seen anywhere near this much enthusiasm for a new game in the twenty years I've been designing. Obviously that's because Redstone is exactly like Go, which is cheating horribly. But it's piqued my pride of ownership.
I really like watching expert Redstone play, which from my perspective is indiscernible from expert Go play. (In the topazg-illluck game, I think it was essentially over before a single red stone had been played.) The gameplay is intricate and beautiful. There's a great extent of possibilities, even on a relatively small board.
While Go/Redstone gameplay is a sight to behold, I've now seen enough to know that Oust is vastly.... Well, 'nuff said.
I've looked at the Go tutorial at SL. I may continue with that. Not sure yet. One thing is that everyone involved with abstract games seems to have some knowledge of Go - kind of a negative reinforcement. I don't know how far I can get in my understanding of Go while not actually playing it, but I'd like to understand the discussion of Redstone relative to Go. I've grown fond of my ugly duckling, exceeding all expectations as it has.
Now, coming full circle, I've accidentally designed a Go variant. I initially called it Cancer, and reluctantly posted it textually without diagrams. I didn't want it, but the Go community might have found the rule set conceptually interesting. In response to complaints, now it's Redstone. I played Redstone a few times (only after posting the rules), just to be a good sport. The last time playing, I informed my opponent "Sorry, I can't handle this any longer," and resigned.
Normally my new designs are met with silence, except when they're scoffed at. I haven't seen anywhere near this much enthusiasm for a new game in the twenty years I've been designing. Obviously that's because Redstone is exactly like Go, which is cheating horribly. But it's piqued my pride of ownership.
I really like watching expert Redstone play, which from my perspective is indiscernible from expert Go play. (In the topazg-illluck game, I think it was essentially over before a single red stone had been played.) The gameplay is intricate and beautiful. There's a great extent of possibilities, even on a relatively small board.
While Go/Redstone gameplay is a sight to behold, I've now seen enough to know that Oust is vastly.... Well, 'nuff said.
I've looked at the Go tutorial at SL. I may continue with that. Not sure yet. One thing is that everyone involved with abstract games seems to have some knowledge of Go - kind of a negative reinforcement. I don't know how far I can get in my understanding of Go while not actually playing it, but I'd like to understand the discussion of Redstone relative to Go. I've grown fond of my ugly duckling, exceeding all expectations as it has.
