LocoRon wrote:
Kind of interesting, but also kind of... not?
Anyway, I'm assuming this is to negate the need for komi in an even game?
The 2 games in one idea was made to that, so the game has no komi rules.
LocoRon wrote:
How would handicaps be allowed in the case of disparate strengths?
It would work like on normal game. The player would have the normal handcaps in both boards.
LocoRon wrote:
The first problem I saw with this was the need for four consecutive passes to end the game.
You have to pass 4 times to end, one of the 2 games (so end in one board). If you end one game, you dont need to stop the other.
The game ends after both games end.
LocoRon wrote:
I'm assuming this is because it is implied that play has to alternate between the two boards (as in, a player made not make two consecutive plays on the same board).
When you pass, this doenst means that you want end the game. Thats why the 4 pass rule was created.
Also you play on both boards/games at the same time. The first turn on the first and second board happens on the same time, the same with second, third... turns. Until the game end on one board and it continue alone on the second board.
LocoRon wrote:
The first problem I saw with this was the need for four consecutive passes to end the game. I'm assuming this is because it is implied that play has to alternate between the two boards (as in, a player made not make two consecutive plays on the same board). Of course, I also don't like that (if that was your intention). No two games will necessarily last the same length, so would players be forced to play through to the absolute end of both games (ie, a resignation covers both boards, rather than just one board)?
If they pass 4 times in one board they just end it on one board and just on this board.
The 4 passes rules was made, because when a guy pass this doenst means that he want to end the game, this would allow players to pass the game but not end it.
LocoRon wrote:
I'm also curious about what you mean by comparing scores in the case of a split game.
The idea was that to have 2 games in one to make the game more balanced. Since both players will start the a game first.
The idea of comparing score was made to solve problems when one player win one game and other player wins other.
I could have choosed that when this happens, its a tie and the game restart again. But with this rule many games would take a extreme amount of time to finish.
LocoRon wrote:
Let's take an imaginary scenario:
On board 1, Player A has 60 points, while Player B has 42 points.
On board 2, Player A has 58 points, while Player B has 70 points.
If it's just looking at the individual score, Player B's 70 point win is greater than Player A's 60 point win. However, looking at the differences of the scores, Player A won his game by 18 points, which has greater than than Player B's 12 point advantage on the other board.
Your idea of comparing the score differences assume that "winning with style" (so having a higher amount of points than the other player) is the most important thing.
My idea rewards filling the game with stones.
Also I am not 100% sure about my idea. There are more way to compare scores:
-The player that has the highest score on the game he lost. Won the game.
EXAMPLE: Board 1 the score is black 10 and white 12, and board 2 the score is black 20 and white 15. In this game white would win (15 against 10)
Also,
Ideas that assume that both boards are not unique games, with is not the case in my variant.
-Compare sum of player scores on both boards. The player with the highest sum wins the game.
LocoRon wrote:
And then we come back to resignations. If resignations are allowed on individual boards, how will they factor into the final score? If just one board was resigned? Or if both boards were resigned?
I will have to think about that.