Red, a Go variant

illluck · **#21**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . O 0 . . | $$ | . . X . . . . X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

I love it when I have absolutely no choice in next move :p Saves me from having to think.

topazg · **#22**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm11 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . O O . . | $$ | . . X . . . 1 X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

Is this viable? I have no idea. The lack of working ladder doesn't phase me for obvious reasons. I'm beginning to see how lots of living groups could be left at the end of the game if eyespace had a number of red stones in. Effectively, the following shape is alive:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . X O . C . | $$ | . . . . . . X O O O O | $$ | . . X . . . X X O X X | $$ | . . . . . . . X X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

I'm not saying how the position arose, but Black can't play in either eye can he ?

MarkSteere · **#23**

topazg wrote:

Effectively, the following shape is alive:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . X O . C . | $$ | . . . . . . X O O O O | $$ | . . X . . . X X O X X | $$ | . . . . . . . X X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

I'm not saying how the position arose, but Black can't play in either eye can he ?

Black can't play in either eye. White might eventually be forced to fill one of the eyes though since passing is not allowed. After that, either player could kill the white group with a red stone.

Just to be clear, there's no score. Redstone is a game of annihilation. There will be groups of at most one color left at the end. There could be no groups - just red stones.

topazg · **#24**

My current suspicion is that no matter what your strategy is early midgame, the eventual situation will come down to each player ritually suiciding a few times and the winner being decided on who ended up with the odd or even numbered move - something only really predictable (without an _insane_ move tree) in the last 10-15 moves. As a result, all strategy up to that point seems rather ... pointless is too strong a word, but not by much I suspect?

Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

MarkSteere · **#25**

It might be the case that when it comes down to both players filling their own eyes, whoever has formed more eyes at that point will win. And then if that's true, and if they both have the same number of eyes, then the player on turn (not necessarily Black) will lose.

MarkSteere · **#26**

I believe that the first player to lose a group is more likely, though not certain, to lose the game. You might be able to turn the tables after losing a group, but every time the tables get turned, the advantage gets a little steeper, making future table turnings less and less likely. Even if it got down to the last two groups, one black and one white, it still wouldn't be a game of pure tempo. It would simply be a matter of who had more eyes in their last remaining group, or if equal, who's turn it was.

illluck · **#27**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm11 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . 2 O O . . | $$ | . . X . . . X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

That endgame implication of continuous play was what I was trying to express (admittedly rather poorly) before. This variant seems quite similar to no-pass Go.

MarkSteere · **#28**

My pseudo-cyclic stone placement games:
1. Tanbo
2. Oust
3. Rive
4. Redstone

topazg · **#29**

MarkSteere wrote:

I believe that the first player to lose a group is more likely, though not certain, to lose the game. You might be able to turn the tables after losing a group, but every time the tables get turned, the advantage gets a little steeper, making future table turnings less and less likely. Even if it got down to the last two groups, one black and one white, it still wouldn't be a game of pure tempo. It would simply be a matter of who had more eyes in their last remaining group, or if equal, who's turn it was.

I'm currently unconvinced that this is the case. Group size and eyespace comes into it, but I actually suspect there'll be a large amount or "remaining moves move parity" issues, and I wonder how many times the game will actually be lost because one side killed himself to remove his final stones. 50% of the time between skilled players maybe?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm11 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . 2 O O . . | $$ | . . X . . 3 X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

hyperpape · **#30**

Note that it wouldn't be most eyes, because of the effective group tax--three eyes for three groups is not worth so much.

I suspect that Mark is right, though, and parity issues won't be the normal case. One player (White) is behind in eyes, so he must either capture his own stones or allow them to be captured first. This creates an empty space on the board, surrounded by Black and Red stones. The only rational play is for White to play in that space. But since that space is surrounded by Black stones with multiple eyes and/or Red stones, these stones are just waiting to be captured. If Black can make even one eye in the space vacated, he is ahead for the next capture. If not, he retains whatever advantage in eyes he had before the first capture, possibly minus one, thanks to parity considerations.

For that reason, I feel confident that parity won't matter unless the "score" difference (importing go terminology) is small once you enter the eye-filling stage. On the other hand, close endgames could be a mess.

MarkSteere · **#31**

topazg wrote:

I actually suspect there'll be a large amount or "remaining moves move parity" issues, and I wonder how many times the game will actually be lost because one side killed himself to remove his final stones. 50% of the time between skilled players maybe?

Closer to 100% of the time. That's how you lose. You don't play as well, you don't get as many eyes, and you have to off yourself.

MarkSteere · **#32**

hyperpape wrote:

One player (White) is behind in eyes, so he must either capture his own stones or allow them to be captured first. This creates an empty space on the board, surrounded by Black and Red stones. The only rational play is for White to play in that space. But since that space is surrounded by Black stones with multiple eyes and/or Red stones, these stones are just waiting to be captured. If Black can make even one eye in the space vacated, he is ahead for the next capture. If not, he retains whatever advantage in eyes he had before the first capture, possibly minus one, thanks to parity considerations.

You hit the nail on the head, hyperpape. When I played Redstone, this is exactly what happened to me. If you're an inferior player and you lose a group, you're not going to turn it around. You're done. Might as well resign at that point.

hyperpape · **#33**

That said, games won by .5 or 1.5 are quite common in high level go. I can't find a really high quality estimate, but here's one indicator: http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi%2FStatistics.

Bill Spight · **#34**

Despite the possibility of a seki involving stones of one player and red stones, I think that the group tax is still 2. (There may be rare exceptions.)

I suspect that strategy is similar to regular no pass go. Big eyes are worth something, but not as much as in regular go.

Anyway, here is a redstone problem you might enjoy. (Or maybe not.

) viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5514

illluck · **#35**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm11 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O O O 4 6 | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X 5 . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

Feel free to reject trigger at any moment.

topazg · **#36**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm11 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . 8 . . . . | $$ | . . . . . 7 O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . 9 . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

illluck · **#37**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm11 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . 8 . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

Let's do this instead.

topazg · **#38**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm11 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . 9 . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . 8 . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

Ok

Some thoughts on strategy and redstone implications to come, I think I'm beginning to get some ideas of important things in this game

illluck · **#39**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm11 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X 0 . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

Yes, I think I'm also understanding it a bit better now. Since first one forced to suicide a group loses, it becomes very similar to no-pass go. In which case the number of groups actually doesn't matter (in fact, group tax hurts).

topazg · **#40**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm21 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0 $$ ------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . X O O O O O | $$ | . . X . . X X X O X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . X X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . 1 . . . . X . . | $$ | . . X O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . O . . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . O . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -------------------------[/go]

illluck wrote:

Yes, I think I'm also understanding it a bit better now. Since first one forced to suicide a group loses, it becomes very similar to no-pass go. In which case the number of groups actually doesn't matter (in fact, group tax hurts).

I'm not entirely sure if that's true (though not entirely sure if it's not). It seems to come down to the number of independent eyes each player has, which effectively becomes the number of legal players the opponent has before he has to suicide a group. After the group suicides, it then comes down to how many new eyes are creatable in the resulting shape - certainly, losing groups really hurts, but I don't think it's going to be quite the same as first to lose a group loses. As such, making internal moves that gain the potential for a couple of extra eyes are going to be valuable, as are dead invasions that are on key shape points in the opponent's territory.

Red, a Go variant

Who is online