jts wrote:As I understand the game, Luigi, after the first capture it will be impossible to kill enemy groups, no matter how improbable these groups seem to a go player. In go, killing techniques require being able to create new strings at will.
Not impossible, but very difficult indeed. As I said in my previous post, this is something which must be assessed before making a capture, and that assessment is the core of the game's strategy.
jts wrote:I've noticed that both you and Christian Freeling create "variants" that show very little sensitivity to how go is played, which raises questions as to whether you've played it much. If you want to create variants of go that are both fun and meet your strict standards for rule simplicity, design a game you find strategically deep first, then see if you can finesse the cycles. You're a bit like the drunk searching for his keys under a lamplight. But I'm not sure whether it's possible to see strategic depths in a go variant before you've explored the strategic dimensions of go itself!
I find Quench strategically deep. That's my main goal when designing games. I know it has little to do with how Go is played, but that's not necessarily good or bad. I'm not suggesting that Go players switch to Quench or any other Go variant. I'm only exploring the design space in search of other interesting implementations of the surround capture mechanic. Some of them are very similar to Go (like my passive ko variant), and some others have almost nothing to do with it (like this one).
In case you're wondering, I play 9x9 Go quite often, but I've played only a couple of times on 13x13 and only once on 19x19. I guess that doesn't qualify me as a Go player. My main focus is on designing games. When I design one which happens to use surround capture and I find it interesting enough, I post it here in the hope that Go players with a wider interest in abstract games will find it interesting as well and have some fun trying it when they need a rest from serious Go play. That's all.
