Go, and the rule of it.

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

billyswong
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:56 pm UTC

Go, and the rule of it.

Postby billyswong » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:00 pm UTC

Inspired by comic 1112 "Think Logically", I posted in its discussion thread the following
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=92198&start=80#p3140211 wrote:Go is one of the deepest open-information zero-sum game, if not the deepest. Its rule, if described well, is the shortest in its reign.

0.1. Prepare a square board with a grid on it. The standard grid size is 19x19, counting the cross-point.
0.2. There are two kinds of stones, one white and one black for each players. They are assumed to never run-out.
1. Take turns and place a stone of one's own onto a cross-point. Black goes first.
2. Remove out-of-breath stones. A stone is breathing when
2.1 it touches empty cross-point(s), or
2.2 it touches breathing stone(s) with the same colour.
3. The checking and removal of out-of-breath stones applies to the opponent's stones first. After they are removed simultaneously do one check and remove stones of oneself.
4. Stone-placement that would make the game return to any previous game-states is prohibited.
5. The game ends when one of the players resigns. When shall one resign is subjected to consensus. One must resign when they has no valid "move" to play.

You can never find another game with both such depth of complexity and such conciseness of the rule.

Someone is quick to point out I deviate from what is commonly heard as the end game condition. They argues that no valid move should not equate a loss as there is still "pass". What are you guys' thought on this?


User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4581
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:25 pm UTC

billyswong wrote:Inspired by comic 1112 "Think Logically", I posted in its discussion thread the following
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=92198&start=80#p3140211 wrote:Go is one of the deepest open-information zero-sum game, if not the deepest. Its rule, if described well, is the shortest in its reign.

0.1. Prepare a square board with a grid on it. The standard grid size is 19x19, counting the cross-point.
0.2. There are two kinds of stones, one white and one black for each players. They are assumed to never run-out.
1. Take turns and place a stone of one's own onto a cross-point. Black goes first.
2. Remove out-of-breath stones. A stone is breathing when
2.1 it touches empty cross-point(s), or
2.2 it touches breathing stone(s) with the same colour.
3. The checking and removal of out-of-breath stones applies to the opponent's stones first. After they are removed simultaneously do one check and remove stones of oneself.
4. Stone-placement that would make the game return to any previous game-states is prohibited.
5. The game ends when one of the players resigns. When shall one resign is subjected to consensus. One must resign when they has no valid "move" to play.

You can never find another game with both such depth of complexity and such conciseness of the rule.

Someone is quick to point out I deviate from what is commonly heard as the end game condition. They argues that no valid move should not equate a loss as there is still "pass". What are you guys' thought on this?


I'm pretty sure that your endgame condition could easily result in players going from classically "won" positions to classically "lost" ones. Namely, at some point you'll have to start filling in your eyes, and depending on the parity of the eye situation, a player in a dominated position could end up with a complete reversal of positions simply because they were able to force the other guy to fill in his eyespace. Or if one player has, say, a large number of captures but a smallish territory, and the other has a large territory but small number of captures, the latter player might win even though the former could have a higher score.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11120
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby Yakk » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:58 pm UTC

What traditional scoring -- Territory or Area? With no passing, the scores for these two are (virtually?) identical, and one of them ignores captures. :) And this system doesn't allow for passes.

Next, note that you can play in opponents territory instead of filling in your eyes. I wouldn't be too quick to discard "whomever can play legally last wins" as being basically equivalent (nor would I be certain it is the case that it is basically equivalent).
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby mike-l » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:25 pm UTC

The main problem is that you can't suicide a single stone (though note that this is only because of the no repeated states rule, so you can suicide multiple stones), so if for example black holds 2 territories and white holds one, with a 181-180 split, and all squares filled but 4 eyes on both sides, then both players must begin filling in eyes, but black only has 2 eyes per group, while white has 4 eyes in his one group, so black loses.

The rules don't have komi, but if they did (say by having 6 squares off board that only white could play in), this would still be a problem by just breaking up black into more regions.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

billyswong
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:56 pm UTC

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby billyswong » Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:13 am UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:There's already a go thread. :)

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8061

And they are in different theme more of a social room. :)

mike-l wrote:The main problem is that you can't suicide a single stone (though note that this is only because of the no repeated states rule, so you can suicide multiple stones), so if for example black holds 2 territories and white holds one, with a 181-180 split, and all squares filled but 4 eyes on both sides, then both players must begin filling in eyes, but black only has 2 eyes per group, while white has 4 eyes in his one group, so black loses.

The rules don't have komi, but if they did (say by having 6 squares off board that only white could play in), this would still be a problem by just breaking up black into more regions.

So this rule-set favours territories that connect. Each split costs about 1 komi?

User avatar
notzeb
Without Warning
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:44 am UTC
Location: a series of tubes

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby notzeb » Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:45 am UTC

In order to make this game look like go, you need to add one more rule:

6. Instead of placing a piece, a player may return a piece he had previously captured to his opponent. (Additionally, the players keep track of captured enemy pieces.)

This way players get one free move at the end of the game (point) for every empty space surrounded (minus two per connected component, because of the need to maintain two eyes), plus one free move (point) for every enemy piece captured.
Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­Z

billyswong
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:56 pm UTC

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby billyswong » Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:09 am UTC

notzeb wrote:In order to make this game look like go, you need to add one more rule:

6. Instead of placing a piece, a player may return a piece he had previously captured to his opponent. (Additionally, the players keep track of captured enemy pieces.)

This way players get one free move at the end of the game (point) for every empty space surrounded (minus two per connected component, because of the need to maintain two eyes), plus one free move (point) for every enemy piece captured.

Not all end-game scoring rules of Go ask for counting captured stones. And your suggestion will greatly penalize those who would like to fight inside opponent's territory.

User avatar
notzeb
Without Warning
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:44 am UTC
Location: a series of tubes

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby notzeb » Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:50 am UTC

Suddenly I doubt that you have ever actually played go...
Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«VµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­ZµkV­ZÕ«ZµjÖ­Zµ«V­jÕ«ZµjÖ­ZÕ«VµjÕ­Z

billyswong
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:56 pm UTC

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby billyswong » Sun Sep 30, 2012 11:41 am UTC

notzeb wrote:Suddenly I doubt that you have ever actually played go...

why that doubt :cry:

Albeit an amateur, my Go skill is definitely okay!

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11120
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby Yakk » Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:02 pm UTC

Zen, before yo u to giving points for captured stones, realize that without passes counting surrounded plus captures equals counting occupied plus surrounded.

In the caputed counting case, each pass is worth a point.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Go, and the rule of it.

Postby mike-l » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:34 am UTC

If I recall correctly, the math works out that there may be a 1 point difference in the two scoring methods depending on parity. (This is, of course, assuming proper counting of passing as a point or not in each scoring system)

I believe there are rule sets that use area scoring and do not grant territory stones, however allowing the removal of 'dead stones' at the end of the game should negate this effect in most cases (unless a player plays to capture 'dead stones' after his opponent passes... a foolish move as it costs points!)
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests