a game idea for begginers

[phillip1882]

so, everyone i hope has heard of one capture go. the goal of which is the first person to capture wins.
but i think a better game, might be no capture go.
the goal is, to play such as to not capture single stone for either side.
simply forming as big of territories as you can. any dead stones at the end of the game are treated normally. this might help begginers learn that go is not about capturing stones but forming territory.
i played this last night with a beginner who thought that you absolutely had to form two eyes to live, but you dont, a big area can also live unconditionally. its just you have to know how to handle invasions when you have a big area.

[xed_over]

so, everyone i hope has heard of one capture go. the goal of which is the first person to capture wins.
...
this might help begginers learn that go is not about capturing stones but forming territory.

maybe you've misunderstood capture go.

when I teach beginners using capture go, I tell them up front that they will likely not be able to capture any of my stones, so the goal is not capture, but learning to not get captured -- learning to count liberties and defend before attacking.

in the end, we too see that go is not about capturing, but about territory.

when you play using the "no pass" version of capture go, it introduces an unnatural strategy that is not like go at all. I don't use that version.

[Bill Spight]

so, everyone i hope has heard of one capture go. the goal of which is the first person to capture wins.
but i think a better game, might be no capture go.
the goal is, to play such as to not capture single stone for either side.
simply forming as big of territories as you can. any dead stones at the end of the game are treated normally.

But how do beginners know which stones are dead?

[Bill Spight]

when you play using the "no pass" version of capture go, it introduces an unnatural strategy that is not like go at all. I don't use that version.

It is the no pass version of capture go that leads naturally to the concept of territory. For instance:

$$B Capture go, Black to play
$$ -----------
$$ | . . . . . |
$$ | X X . X X |
$$ | X O X X O |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . . . . . |
$$ -----------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Capture go, Black to play
$$ -----------
$$ | . . . . . |
$$ | X X . X X |
$$ | X O X X O |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . . . . . |
$$ -----------[/go]

Instead of playing on, the players can determine the result by counting territory. Each point of territory is one point on which a player can play.

$$B Capture go, Black wins
$$ -----------
$$ | . 3 1 5 . |
$$ | X X 7 X X |
$$ | X O X X O |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | 9 4 2 6 8 |
$$ -----------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Capture go, Black wins
$$ -----------
$$ | . 3 1 5 . |
$$ | X X 7 X X |
$$ | X O X X O |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | 9 4 2 6 8 |
$$ -----------[/go]

Furthermore, suppose that you play Capture N so that you can hand over a captive instead of making a play on the board. In this case White could hand over a stone instead of playing on the board. Then the idea emerges that one captive is equivalent to one point of territory.

It is true that there is a group tax of two points, but that was true for ancient territory go, as well. The basic idea of territory emerges from no pass capture go.

[leichtloeslich]

the goal is, to play such as to not capture single stone for either side.
simply forming as big of territories as you can. any dead stones at the end of the game are treated normally.

So basically all rules are normal, but capturing stones (as in removing their last liberty) is illegal?

Not only does that sound insane, it sounds ill defined and certainly not educational for beginners.
Also, how can any stones be dead if capturing is illegal? Do you simply say "all stones with 2 eyes are alive and the rest is dead"?
What about sekis?

Here's an exaggerated example of a 3x3 game:

$$B
$$ +-------+
$$ | . 6 . |
$$ | 4 1 2 |
$$ | 5 . 3 |
$$ +-------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------+
$$ | . 6 . |
$$ | 4 1 2 |
$$ | 5 . 3 |
$$ +-------+[/go]

Are all stones alive? Dead?

If that example seems too extreme, consider this position resulting from a well-known joseki:

$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . O O . . . . |
$$ . X X X O O a . |
$$ . . . . X X O . |
$$ . . . . . b X . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ ----------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . O O . . . . |
$$ . X X X O O a . |
$$ . . . . X X O . |
$$ . . . . . b X . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |[/go]

joseki is for white to connect at a. But why shouldn't he just cut at b? Black can't capture that second-line stone from white anyway.

go is not about capturing stones but forming territory.

I don't think this is the case at all.
How can you call any area your territory?
Isn't it because any enemy stone that enters can be captured?

[phillip1882]

so in that 3x3, it would be seki, since both sides win the fight after both players pass. in any position for a beginner there is no reson not to play any particular move. since a begginner doesnt know what he is doing, most of the game apears random. this game idea is to help beginners understand the primary objective of the game.
guidance by a stronger player is always welcome of course, espically when determing dead or alive stones.
i dunno, just an idea i'm throwing out there.