| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| An idea for a Go variant http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6395 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Alberich [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | An idea for a Go variant |
I was just inspired to come up with this idea and it's based on western chess. Each side has one different colored stone, one for the white side, one for the black side. This different colored stone becomes the focus of the opponent's strategy for the game....which is to surround and capture that stone. The rules of Go remain the same...nothing different except the goal becomes trying to surround and capture the different colored stone. The one difference is this multi colored stone is able to move anywhere on the board...making it difficult for the other side to capture...but the other stone has to still remain on the board when it's that side's turn to move. If the other side surrounds the group that has the different colored stone...the game is over and the side that surrounded the group that has that stone prevails. This in my opinion eliminates the problem of counting when using Japanese or Chinese rules...because regardless of the count of the stones...the object is to capture the group that has the different colored stone. Whattaya think? |
|
| Author: | lorill [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
That would mean preventing the opponent to make a living group on an empty board. This is not possible. |
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
If I understand the idea correctly, stalemate is a virtual certainty. |
|
| Author: | Alberich [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
Joaz Banbeck wrote: If I understand the idea correctly, stalemate is a virtual certainty. Not necessarily. In the variant, each side can move the different colored stone to another part of the board. But the trick is figuring out where to place the stone. Because when the board becomes full of opposing colors it becomes much harder to place the stone so that it can't get caught. So if you end up with the stone in a group that's surrounded...by the time the game is over all you'd have to do is prove the group that has the different colored stone is dead. Once that's proven the victor is declared. |
|
| Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
Once a group forms two eyes, then how do you kill the special stone? If I may humbly offer my opinion, I think you should get stronger at Go before you offer up Go variants. It's hard to really understand how the game flows at your level. It would be like me trying to learn chess and instantly saying, for example, that en passante is a bad rule and should be removed, or that knights shouldn't be able to move unless there's no pieces in the way of their jump. As a hypothetical beginner, proposing these rules when I really don't know what I am talking about is only going to make stronger players roll their eyes at me. |
|
| Author: | lemmata [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
Dusk Eagle wrote: If I may humbly offer my opinion, I think you should get stronger at Go before you offer up Go variants. Hey, now. Don't be mean. He didn't say that his variant was better than go (Although I suspect that he doesn't like counting). I am guessing that he was just shooting the breeze, making small talk. 
|
|
| Author: | Joaz Banbeck [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
DE isn't being mean, IMHO, just honest. FWIW, I agree with him: You have to understand the fundamentals of something to be able to create interesting variations of it. |
|
| Author: | lemmata [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
Joaz Banbeck wrote: DE isn't being mean, IMHO, just honest. I agree with him, too. I just don't think that stating it so explicitly is the best way to communicate. I don't think that Dusk Eagle intended to be mean (as you might have guessed from the FWIW, I agree with him: You have to understand the fundamentals of something to be able to create interesting variations of it. ), but his/her post certainly had a good chance of being interpreted that way. Also, there is such a thing as mean honesty.
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
To avoid stalemate, make castling impossible by having your own stones take up the liberties of your king. The Black King is not safe. In fact: The White King drops into the corner, taking away the last liberty of the Black King. For starters, make it no pass go. That also avoids stalemate. Also, to avoid a game where the players just move their kings around, when a king is moved, a regular stone is placed where the king was. You need a superko rule. Start with an empty board. The first two moves are King moves. Maybe prohibit either player from placing their King on tengen (on an odd board) on the first move. Edit: I think it would also help to treat the King as a stone of its own color, except for its own liberties. E. g., connecting a stone to its King saves it. Strange things can happen if the King is the enemy of its own stones. |
|
| Author: | shapenaji [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
Bill Spight wrote: To avoid stalemate, make castling impossible by having your own stones take up the liberties of your king. Started reading the thread and was about to post just this, +1 unfortunately, there's this: Black's king sits in his fortress and cannot be captured You would need to make it so that the king doesn't remove liberties of stones around it. I like the idea of leaving behind a stone in place when you move it, that would improve it. The big question is, Is this still go? Does having more territory than your opponent necessitate being better able to protect your king? I think it MIGHT be true, but I'm not sure . |
|
| Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
Sorry if I sounded rude, Alberich. As you get more experienced I bet you'll find counting to be quite natural. If you keep up studying Go for a while, you'll even be able to estimate the count of the board to within a few points accuracy well before the end of the game (and then know, for example, if you need to be extra aggressive because you're behind or if you should play it safe because you're ahead). If you haven't seen it before, be sure to check out Sensei's Library - it's a great resource that really helps you improve at Go. |
|
| Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
If you're playing with a No Pass rule, then you probably want to play on a small board size, such as 9x9. 19x19 endgame with no pass would take forever... I could be wrong, but playing with a No Pass rule when not playing Atari Go seems to change the overall nature of the game. See the bottom of http://senseis.xmp.net/?NoPassGo for an example - in the last diagram, black has more territory, but white wins if it's his turn. Since both players can place instantly dead stones in the other's territory to extend the number of moves they can make, territory is kind of awkward - I feel it's still an advantage to have more, but I don't know exactly how it works out. |
|
| Author: | Javaness2 [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
I think you should modify the idea a little 1. You can win by points or capture of the opponent's magical-king-like-token 2. Allow the king to only move in a certain restricted way (like a knight's move) 3. Play on a small board 4. (Maybe) Put the magical-king-like-tokens in the centre of the board at the start. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
shapenaji wrote: Bill Spight wrote: To avoid stalemate, make castling impossible by having your own stones take up the liberties of your king. Started reading the thread and was about to post just this, +1 unfortunately, there's this: Black's king sits in his fortress and cannot be captured You would need to make it so that the king doesn't remove liberties of stones around it. Neat example! So, yes. As far as other stones are concerned, let the Kings not take away liberties.  sets up a mate, but then:The Black King moves, capturing the White stone. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
On the first two moves, Black and White place their Kings. On move 3 the Black King moves to tengen.  plays on the top side.The Black King still has a liberty (the White King).  mates.True, the White King has no liberties, either, but like go, the player with the move captures.  Edited for stupidity. Too early in the morning.
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
On the first two moves, Black and White place their Kings. On move 3 the Black King moves to tengen. plays on the top side.The Black King moves to the side. wins!The Black King must move. But now  mates.
|
|
| Author: | shapenaji [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
Oh? How about this?  Now white has no legal play. EDIT: Woops, white has a play, here we go now, if black moves to the bottom left corner, he gets checkmated on the following move. Perhaps there should be an opposition rule, kings can checkmate other kings. (So it can take the liberties of the other king) |
|
| Author: | Dusk Eagle [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
Depending on the rules, Black is captured before white. |
|
| Author: | shapenaji [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
Dusk Eagle wrote: Depending on the rules, Black is captured before white. I was assuming white can't move into check  perhaps that was a big assumption.
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: An idea for a Go variant |
shapenaji wrote: Perhaps there should be an opposition rule, kings can checkmate other kings. (So it can take the liberties of the other king) I am leaning that way myself. Kings take away each other's liberty, but not the liberties of other stones. Or maybe: Kings take away the liberties of their own stones, as well as each other's liberties, but not the liberties of the opponent's regular stones. Crazy game!
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|