Does anyone have any analysis or details on games of Go played concurrently? Not simultaneous games against multiple people, but when both players "seal" their moves and play at the same time. If they pick the same space, then that spot is blacklisted. Captures get resolved simultaneously (so a seki might end up getting both groups killed).

I think it'd destroy a lot of the current gameplay, but would it produce anything neat? My biggest concern is that it'd become a game of guessing what the other person wants, introducing chance.

I looked on SL, but couldn't find anything. Any insights?

How would blacklisting positions interact with life and death? Is having one blacklisted eye enough for life? One blacklisted external liberty?

Also, are moves permanently blacklisted, or just for the turn?

Sorry, blacklisted for that turn. Otherwise both players could just infinitely choose to play a critical point. So they need to play somewhere else first, then can try to return to that point.

I found a brief description here:
http://fuseki.net/home/simultaneous-go.html

I've never heard of this before. It would introduce chance and gimmicky meta-gaming and it wouldn't resemble Go at all.

Even blacklisting one turn, you can still end up with infinite loops, if there is a clearly largest and second largest move on the board, like life and death for two groups. Then the players switch between blocking the kill for each group in turn.

You could have a ko rule, where you can't replay a move until a stone is actually put down, although you'd risk having to play 2 (then 3, then 4...) blocked moves between every real move. And then at the end, you'd still need to decide how to resolve the permanently blocked positions.

It might be more feasible to play out just the fuseki under these rules, say the first 30 moves. Then do a komi auction or one of those variants to decide who gets first play.

That is an interesting idea, but the blacklisting idea might work, maybe half baked. If you had a very big group in Atari, you would pretty much have to make that move every other turn, which could get old, I kind of expect that it would work itself out, eventually there would be more than one large group in Atari, but then the players would cycle, back and forth.

Maybe instead of a blacklist, introduce a third type of token to mark co-selection. The token when placed on a cross hatch would reduce all connected liberties, and generally behave like an edge. That way you wouldn't get Atari cycles, since the other player couldn't prevent capturing.

This is a pretty interesting idea. I envisioned something similar if the blacklist lasted forever, apart from the loss of liberty.

Ahh, but they wouldn't cycle. The moves are made concurrently, so they don't know which move the opponent will pick.

Half the time, they will both choose the same move, blacklist it, then blacklist the remaining move, then tenuki. But the other half the time, they will choose different moves, resolving both groups in one turn.

These sound like interesting ideas, though it all hinges on how well the blacklisting can be implemented. Other than that I can also see it being a pain having to seal every move.

I'm also imagining just scattering a few of those third token types in "normal" games and wondering what changes that would introduce.

PeterN

Only if the two groups are worth identical points. Otherwise, if you choose the lesser group, you're allowing your opponent to take a point advantage. Although the moves are concurrent, there will certainly be situations like this where you can derive the best move for both players, and play it, knowing you'll collide with the opponent but that anything else puts you at a disadvantage.



I was thinking about that too, although it makes it very hard for a player to run at all in confined quarters. We often stretch our lines thin to enclose an enemy group, and then they cut our position to either capture a stone and get out or get forcing moves on other stones to push out sideways. But if we can use these "internal edges" to stop them, by playing where they want to move out, we've put basically an uncapturable stone in their way.

What if these internal edges behave like a wild stone, either black or white? That is, if black is surrounded by white and wild stones, he's captured. If a wild stone is surrounded by one color it's captured. If a wild stone and a black group are connected and all surrounded by white, they all are captured.

Suppose you had a move that was worth 20 points in captures or could be connected at the same spot a sure win, then another move that was worth 15 points in capture or a connection also a sure win, I think it is fairly obvious that both players would choose the 20 point group first, then it would be blacklisted, so they would both pick the 15 point move, which would then be blacklisted, at which point they would both pick a different move(assuming super ko rule), at which point they would go back to both picking the 20 point group then the 15 point group... I'm pretty sure it would get old quick.

I think you would still have mutual captures issues to resolve, situations where whites chain A and blacks chain B are in mutual atari with one liberty, or even seki, how would that work? All alive, all dead? Throw-ins. Wild stone ko... The mechanics of edges are tough enough to wrap ones head around.

What if the blacklist continues until legal moves are played? So move 100 (same spot, blacklisted) move 101 (same alternate spot, so spot 100 & 101 are blacklisted) move 102 (different locations, so all blacklists cleared).

Does that mostly solve the problem at AMA level?

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Not really, because if they're big enough, 103 will be the same as 100 and 104 will be the same as 101.

You could have players bid for the move, both players revealing their bids and plays at the same time. The high bidder pays the difference in bids to the other player. (All bids must be non-negative.) If both players pick the same point to play on, the high bidder plays and pays the other player the amount of his bid. If both players pick the same point and make the high bid, flip a coin, or let the players alternate. The first time that happens, Black makes the play and pays the price, the next time White does so, etc. Each player's final score is the regular go score plus the points he has been paid.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I was thinking about that flipping who gets the point, kind of like a basketball jump ball at the collegiate level. Would the player who didn't get the "jump ball", have the opportunity to pick a different position or could both players pick a different position one in order, deferring to the standard rules for two moves, before continuing with the procedure of hidden move registration, with the possession arrow flipped.

I have reconsidered. I think that scheme is flawed. For instance, suppose that there are two equally good plays worth 5 points and one player picks one and bids the fair price of 5 points while the other player picks the other one and bids 0 points. They both make their plays, each picking up 5 points on the board, but the low-baller gains 5 points in the bidding.

So here is my revision. Only bid when both players pick the same point. Then the high bidder makes the play and pays the amount of his bid. If the bids are the same, then break the tie, but still the player who makes the play pays the price.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.