I've come up with an offbeat generalization of the Symple balancing mechanism which can be used in most stone placement games and maybe even other kinds of games as well. It is as follows:

Instead of making a regular move, a player may choose to make a certain special move. Once a player makes the special move, neither him nor his opponent can make it for the rest of the game. If the special move is made by the second player, he still has the right to make a regular move on the same turn.

Here are two simple examples of special moves which can be used under this protocol in most stone placement games:

a) Moving any or all your pieces to adjacent empty points.

b) Taking as many steps as stones you have on the board. A step consists of moving one of your stones to an adjacent empty point. Each step can be made with any of your stones.

Other kinds of special moves must be possible as well. The only requirement for them to work as balancing tools is that their value keeps increasing at a constant pace for a long part of the game, starting from less than half the value of the best move in the first turn of the game.

As in Symple, the idea is that players will only want to make the special move when its value is as close as possible to half the value of the best regular move, as simple maths prove that:

a) making it before that point costs the player more than letting his opponent make it himself, and

b) letting the opponent make it after that point costs the player more than making it himself.

Symple has the great advantage that special and regular moves are the same, which makes this balancing mechanism fit the game like a glove. My generalization retains the advantage over the pie rule of not requiring players to make intentionally mediocre first moves, but it also dramatically changes the opening phase of almost any game it's applied to.

Of course, I'm not suggesting it as a replacement for komi or the pie rule. I just think it's an interesting curiosity, and I'm wondering how the opening would proceed in Go with it.

The problem is : the new game would not be go.

It change too much life & death, and every tactical aspect of the game.

Remember that the special move can only be made once per game, by only one (either one) of the players. Afterwards the game is just Go.

Also, the special move will be made very early in the game. In Symple, it's usually made when there are less than 8 stones on the board.

My question to you Go players is: when will the special move "moving-any-or-all-your-stones-to-orthogonally-or-diagonally-adjacent-points" be worth half the value of the best regular move?

I disagree, this is only true if the players leave the special move for too long.

The nature of the special move is that because both players can make it (and black loses his move by doing so), Black can make the special move before any tactical complications begin. Black needs to preempt the move. Because white gets a better result out of it.

I don't think proper application of the special move would ever result in a capture.

EDIT:

The "Tengen + attach to Tengen" opening would be hilarious though.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Why?

The tactical complications start immediately, but at the same time, black and white don't have obviously better places to put their stones for several moves. It feels like one side has to remove his/her stones from the fight.

Consider the following:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 3 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . 5 1 4 . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White can use the special move here, but it will be the same as a regular move (moving both stones does no good, since then black connects his stones through and gets a huge advantage.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm6
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . O X 2 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . X X O . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Still, no advantage for either side in taking the special move, looking a ways out, it's hard to see a place that either black or white would obviously want to move existing stones, and I feel like it would just come down to tactics, at some point white will be able to shift his/her stones to enable a tesuji.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Nice exemple of how moving a stone can change drastically things:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 2 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ . . . . 2 4 . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Or this one :

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 6 4 . . |
$$ . . . 7 1 5 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 6 4 . . |
$$ . . . 7 1 5 8 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . , . . . |[/go]

And these (very common) sequences start very early in the game

Black can't attach at 3, he gives up his first move advantage by either taking the special move and making white's approach suboptimal, or by pulling back and making a more conservative response:

The whole point is that black has to handicap himself a little for going first, in order to negate the first move advantage.

these would be more reasonable sequences:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black plays Conservatively and encourages white to take the special move
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black takes the special move and adjusts to make the right side less valuable. since white has suggested that he wants it
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Again, 3 is too aggressive, black cannot use his first move advantage to pincer.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

But I think once you've admitted that neither side is willing to pincer or attach until one side has used the special ability, you've conceded Tryss's point, no? The fuseki, at least, has nothing to do with Go.

Well, attachment and pincers are fine (white, certainly, is willing to pincer)

It means that black cannot use his first move advantage to start a fight which would override komi. I think it is certainly still go. Only 1 joseki on the board would ever change because of this.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

you can see what effects altering game of go from batoo.
i rather play traditional go than add special effects.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

also, this sequence isn't that bad for black:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . 6 4 . . |
$$ . . . 7 1 5 8 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . 2 . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . , . . . |[/go]

Black follows up with:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . 1 O O . . |
$$ . . . X X X O . |
$$ . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ . . . . 3 . O . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . , . . . |[/go]

This is within 3 points of joseki I think...

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

The thing is, it only gets really special if you try to hold on to the first move advantage.

Otherwise, it shifts into normal go very quickly (because neither side wants to be blown out tactically)

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Luigi's idea may well be worth considering, given the response, but it emerged in Symple and was immediately afterwards used in Sygo. Both games allow multiple placements per turn (with each placement the growth of an existing group), OR a single placement (which must be the start of a new group).

The 'special move' is that as long as no growth has taken place the second player has the right to do both in the same turn. The first player can prevent him from doing so, by growing his groups, which is a regular move.

The balance is in the measure of initial growth one player will be willing to sacrifice to the other for turn initiative - the principle grows out of the multiple placement character of the move protocol, and cannot be embedded in a single placement game in this particular way. By lack of the 'measure of growth' as a balancing criterion, in a single placement game like Go it must be the measure of something else.

That's why I don't believe Luigi's suggestion, however worth considering, is a generalization of the Symple balancing mechanism.

_________________
cogito ergo erro

It's only fair as long as you assume perfect play
edit: and that komi is half the value of the first move.

I'm not quite sure in reply to which post this is but I agree about the komi .

To illustrate Symple's balancing mechanism, we're conveniently presented with a kind of Bobby Fischer of Symple bots in the CodeCup 2013 Challenge.
In the fourth test round there appeared a new dutch competitor named Remco Bloemen, with a C++ program named "main32". It has an interesting list of results.

Answering  questions about strategy appears to be extremely difficult because Symple has a strategic dilemma embedded in its object. Watching this program play is fascinating, and will most likely provide the very tools that are needed to carve out the main strategic principles. Since I'm already struggling to keep up with its opposition, I have no doubt that I'd be on the losing end against main32 for the foreseeable future. I'm looking forward to playing against it.

_________________
cogito ergo erro

My post is in response to the OP