Concurrent Go?

[Bill Spight]

Does anyone have any analysis or details on games of Go played concurrently? Not simultaneous games against multiple people, but when both players "seal" their moves and play at the same time. If they pick the same space, then that spot is blacklisted. Captures get resolved simultaneously (so a seki might end up getting both groups killed).

I think it'd destroy a lot of the current gameplay, but would it produce anything neat? My biggest concern is that it'd become a game of guessing what the other person wants, introducing chance.

I looked on SL, but couldn't find anything. Any insights?

You could have players bid for the move, both players revealing their bids and plays at the same time. The high bidder pays the difference in bids to the other player. (All bids must be non-negative.) If both players pick the same point to play on, the high bidder plays and pays the other player the amount of his bid. If both players pick the same point and make the high bid, flip a coin, or let the players alternate. The first time that happens, Black makes the play and pays the price, the next time White does so, etc. Each player's final score is the regular go score plus the points he has been paid.

[SmoothOper]

Does anyone have any analysis or details on games of Go played concurrently? Not simultaneous games against multiple people, but when both players "seal" their moves and play at the same time. If they pick the same space, then that spot is blacklisted. Captures get resolved simultaneously (so a seki might end up getting both groups killed).

I think it'd destroy a lot of the current gameplay, but would it produce anything neat? My biggest concern is that it'd become a game of guessing what the other person wants, introducing chance.

I looked on SL, but couldn't find anything. Any insights?

You could have players bid for the move, both players revealing their bids and plays at the same time. The high bidder pays the difference in bids to the other player. (All bids must be non-negative.) If both players pick the same point to play on, the high bidder plays and pays the other player the amount of his bid. If both players pick the same point and make the high bid, flip a coin, or let the players alternate. The first time that happens, Black makes the play and pays the price, the next time White does so, etc. Each player's final score is the regular go score plus the points he has been paid.

I was thinking about that flipping who gets the point, kind of like a basketball jump ball at the collegiate level. Would the player who didn't get the "jump ball", have the opportunity to pick a different position or could both players pick a different position one in order, deferring to the standard rules for two moves, before continuing with the procedure of hidden move registration, with the possession arrow flipped.

[Bill Spight]

Does anyone have any analysis or details on games of Go played concurrently? Not simultaneous games against multiple people, but when both players "seal" their moves and play at the same time. If they pick the same space, then that spot is blacklisted. Captures get resolved simultaneously (so a seki might end up getting both groups killed).

I think it'd destroy a lot of the current gameplay, but would it produce anything neat? My biggest concern is that it'd become a game of guessing what the other person wants, introducing chance.

I looked on SL, but couldn't find anything. Any insights?

You could have players bid for the move, both players revealing their bids and plays at the same time. The high bidder pays the difference in bids to the other player. (All bids must be non-negative.) If both players pick the same point to play on, the high bidder plays and pays the other player the amount of his bid. If both players pick the same point and make the high bid, flip a coin, or let the players alternate. The first time that happens, Black makes the play and pays the price, the next time White does so, etc. Each player's final score is the regular go score plus the points he has been paid.

I have reconsidered. I think that scheme is flawed. For instance, suppose that there are two equally good plays worth 5 points and one player picks one and bids the fair price of 5 points while the other player picks the other one and bids 0 points. They both make their plays, each picking up 5 points on the board, but the low-baller gains 5 points in the bidding.

So here is my revision. Only bid when both players pick the same point. Then the high bidder makes the play and pays the amount of his bid. If the bids are the same, then break the tie, but still the player who makes the play pays the price.