If God played Go, always playing the optimal moves (i.e. the moves which would lead to the greatest winning margin if his opponent also plays optimal moves), where do you think He would play Black's first move?

I guess it would either be on the 3-4 point or on the 4-4 point. But which one is more likely to be the theoretical optimal first move?

Why do you think that there is only one? Or if there is one, it isn't the 5-5, for instance?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

God wouldn't play Black.

Only God (and Chuck Norris) can answer!

_________________
Simplify!

Chuck Norris can beat any go player by starting at 1-1

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

When Chuck Norris want to be kind with someone, he wins by playing only pass moves.

That means that pass move is not the best for sure!

_________________
Simplify!

Chuck Norris has such superhuman abilities, that when he makes a Chuck-Norris-joke, it's actually funny.

According to http://ps.waltheri.net/ the best moves are 9-4, 8-8, 10-8, 7-4 and 6-5.

_________________
Simplify!

He would pass as black.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

God plays backgammon

_________________
si no puedes triunfar, muere gloriosamente

God doesn't play dice...

But yes, backgammon is nice

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

I suspect that no god would waste its time on a finite game such as go.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Well, it has been done before. The norse Gods played Hnefatafl in their free time, as mentioned in the Edda. The game got extinct in the meantime, but survived the gods by a fair amount of time. Unfortunately no game record survived. Smithing was their other favourite pastime.

Zen uses an opening book. But is there a sensible proposition by zen if you switch off the opening book?

_________________
If something sank it might be a treasure. And 2kyu advice is not necessarily Dan repertoire..

It's a pity hnefatafl didn't survive with a clear ruleset (there are size, corner, placement and movement rule variations) and we are stranded with so many variations of the (essentially) same game. I like tafl.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Compared to other games that died out, the situation about the ruleset is not so bad (we have something that makes kind of sense and let's us play the game. I'm sure there were different rules in different places and different times anyway. Game rules evolve. We don't play Go under the exact rule set they had 1000 years ago. But we still think to be playing essentially the same game. No big deal.). I find it more of a pity that no single game record exists. I don't know the situation about backgammon, but we are spoiled to have as many records of chess and go games dating back a long time.


Me too. Norse gods can't be wrong.

Back on topic. Zen anyone? In other threads people ask about a "fair" komi, which I find related to the question of the OP. Does Zen have an opinion about a fair komi? Also, the komi has an influence on the choice for first move. Maybe it is not visible if komi of 6.5 plusminus 1 are considered (those with a database may see something, though), but I expect a different move, if komi is set to 0.

_________________
If something sank it might be a treasure. And 2kyu advice is not necessarily Dan repertoire..

I answer this, since I don't know the zen answer

From the backgammon books I have read, backgammon didn't get a competitive edge (i.e. becoming a more brainy game instead of a pure luck game) until last century's 50s, or around that time. Also, the introduction of the doubling cube in the 20s changed the shape of the game forever (I think a doubling cube would be neat for for-territory-go-matches, too.) So, even if there are no records I don't think the general backgammon-playing people care that much.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

If there is one optimal first move (as opposed to four or eight equally good first moves) then it has to be the center point. That's simply a matter of the symmetries.

I did of course understand the original question in the sense intended, that those other first moves for which there are either 3 or 7 exact equivalents, still could be referred to as the best first move, the set of four or of eight equivalents.

However even so, as the game of go is defined, a win being a win regardless of by 1/2 point or by 30 points, etc. how we define "best" is tricky. If "best first move" is simply "a first move such that with perfect play the player making that first move wins" there might not be a unique best first move. There might be more than one.

I feel like it has to be tengen. On a 9x9, tengen is brutal, splits all of white's plans, I feel like the same is true on a 19x19, but the method is considerably harder.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

That was my understanding, as well.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Tengen is indeed powerful on a small board however as the board gets larger, the balance of the game switches from the center towards corners and sides thus a tengen isn't as powerful.

I think I would have to go with the 4-4 stones since a 5-5 is too far away from the corner and puts more emphasize to the center (which on 19x19 is not as important as corners and sides), and 3-3 doesn't give enough importance to the center.

Then you have 3-4 moves which actually switch the game from the center by a small margin towards the corner and a little bit on the side.

And then you have 3-5 moves which switch the game towards the sides more than the corners however since it is still low it doesn't put enough emphasize on the center.

But all in all 4-4 is the ultimate balance and if I had to go with one move it would be 4-4.

However in truth I think we could say that 4-4, 3-4, 3-5 are all good starting points and could be starting points for perfect play.

However Corners - sides - center , this is what a common chain of order is.

So no pros would fight for the center and leave all the juicy corners then again taking all the corners has proved not to be so good ether since it is impossible (opponent won't easily allow it) or leaves better plays for opponent.

Does that mean that the game is shifted towards the sides more?

Could it mean that for example a side is worth of 1 (one) of something (points), corners are worth 1.5 and the center is worth 0.5?

It is very hard to find a true point system that we could use to describe this but let's just move with it for now.

If we can assume that both players want to win the game they would all most likely want to have as much as corner points with access to the sides and then maybe a small access to the center?

If so then we can say that the opponent wants the same thing and thus they will not allow each other to get the b est possible outcome?

I think the game is not about corners, sides or center but about the balance between the three. However since you don't want to be stuck with the worst (center), nor will opponent allow you to get the best (corner) you and your opponent actually shift towards the sides more?

Try to see it in pro games, because it would take me another 2000 words to describe all of this and I simply can't imagine myself doing this on new years eve.

Maybe the 5-3 stone, the stone which doesn't give much in the corner but focuses on side more which is in the middle has the greatest value? Maybe I am wrong, only God knows.