The pie rule

tchan001 · **#21**

hyperpape wrote:

Shapenaji, for the purposes of the question, imagine that you're playing...EVIL SHAPENAJI. He knows everything you know and plays the same way, but evil.

Shapenaji, for the purposes of the question, imagine that you're playing...GOOD SHAPENAJI. He knows everything you know and plays the same way, but good.

shapenaji · **#22**

ez4u wrote:

Imagine the following choices:
1. A Center-oriented opening move:
1a Play it
1b Play against it with no komi
2. A Territory-oriented opening move:
2a Play it
2b Play against it with no komi
Assuming that you are in a situation where you are making the first play turn by turn in a series of games, where would the advantage be? You are better at one, which you can take advantage of when you are choosing the initial play, and your opponent is better at the other, which they can take advantage of in turn. Of course you can assume that there is no repetition, but then you have described why the pie rule does not work in Go, right? It confers an unfair advantage to a knowledgeable player, where the relevant knowledge consists of an understanding of your opponent's style. Alternatively you can imagine situations such as you are better at center-oriented play and your opponent is not better at territory-oriented play, but then haven't you simply described being stronger than your opponent? I am probably missing the point here somewhere. :blackeye:

Well, isn't the point of the pie rule to make a single game even?

A series of games is already even, you just alternate black and white.

shapenaji · **#23**

hyperpape wrote:

Shapenaji, for the purposes of the question, imagine that you're playing...EVIL SHAPENAJI. He knows everything you know and plays the same way, but evil.

tchan001 wrote:

Shapenaji, for the purposes of the question, imagine that you're playing...GOOD SHAPENAJI. He knows everything you know and plays the same way, but good.

Playing your double seems like one of the few times the pie rule should result in an even start. (That or ignorance of your opponent)

The way I see it, we have 2 ways here of trying to make the game even:

1) Komi, regardless of what information I have about my opponent, I gain nothing from going first

2) The 1-move Pie Rule, Having information on my opponent enables me to use the first placement to set up a choice between two options which are both unsatisfactory for my opponent.

The first player gets to decide the nature of the flow of the game, and can use this against his opponent.

I could use a different pie rule to illustrate this,
What if I let one player play the first 40 moves. And then let the other player choose after that?

If it were up to me, I'd leave my opponent with a lot of fights all over the board. If instead, I were a monster at endgame (which I am certainly not, but for the sake of argument), I would create a number of solidified positions all over the board, leading to an early endgame.

ez4u · **#24**

shapenaji wrote:

ez4u wrote:

Imagine the following choices:
1. A Center-oriented opening move:
1a Play it
1b Play against it with no komi
2. A Territory-oriented opening move:
2a Play it
2b Play against it with no komi
Assuming that you are in a situation where you are making the first play turn by turn in a series of games, where would the advantage be? You are better at one, which you can take advantage of when you are choosing the initial play, and your opponent is better at the other, which they can take advantage of in turn. Of course you can assume that there is no repetition, but then you have described why the pie rule does not work in Go, right? It confers an unfair advantage to a knowledgeable player, where the relevant knowledge consists of an understanding of your opponent's style. Alternatively you can imagine situations such as you are better at center-oriented play and your opponent is not better at territory-oriented play, but then haven't you simply described being stronger than your opponent? I am probably missing the point here somewhere. :blackeye:

Well, isn't the point of the pie rule to make a single game even?

A series of games is already even, you just alternate black and white.

OK, I have been writing at cross purposes to your original post. As an approach for a single game, I agree with your logic. I also agree with your assertion that it is not an even trade. :tmbup:

wms · **#25**

I have played several games that use the pie rule and I always hate it. When I select my first move, it's because that's the move I want to play, not the move I want to play against. I hate it when I want to try some new strategy then my opponent flips colors on me. Grrrrr.

Games that need the pie rule to be close to even are much less interesting to me. Luckily I'm so bad at hex that it's still pretty even, even without the pie rule.

hyperpape · **#26**

shapenaji wrote:

Also, following up that thought,

I don't think the pie rule is an even trade. If I know anything about my opponent, it will cease to be a balance, because I can play a move that I know works well with my style, but poorly with my opponent's.

As a result, there is still an advantage to the first move.

I'm still struggling with this idea. I'm hyper-territorial, but I think I'd take a center-oriented move over playing second. I wouldn't be comfortable, but I think I'd still be better off against an opponent of my own strength.

Obviously, I'm going to get less out of that move than my opponent would. But are there really any moves that are pretty good for one player's style and horrible for another? I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the differences are that stark.

As an analogy, if you plop me down with a moyo that gives a medium advantage, I might actually have zero advantage over my opponent. But if it's a big advantage, I'm still favored to win the game.

(I guess if there's an insane 7-7 trick play that my opponent knows, that's going to ruin what I'm saying).

emeraldemon · **#27**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B 5x5 board $$ ----------- $$ | . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . | $$ | . . , . . | $$ | . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . | $$ -----------[/go]

Do you take white or black? (5x5 has been solved, so please use hide tags if you know the answer!)

speedchase · **#28**

[Hide]I think white wins if she plays at 3-3 but I am not sure[Hide]

Mef · **#29**

Along these lines....

Bill Spight wrote:

If I think of a suboptimal opening move for go, it is not easy to find one that is worth just the right amount. And then the game may look strange. But a three move pie sequence allows more scope, both for finding moves and for finding an inefficient combination.

topazg wrote:

There are some rather elegant extensions to the pie rule which I think could work quite nicely for Go, like the opening rules for Renju (Gomoku, or 5 in a row, but in a way that is not hugely advantageous - and arguably solved as a win to the starting player):

shapenaji wrote:

I could use a different pie rule to illustrate this,
What if I let one player play the first 40 moves. And then let the other player choose after that?

...Perhaps another option to be considered would be the variant where players play N moves (let N be some number like 10-20), then a coin is flipped -- heads they switch colors, tails they keep the same. This would give both players the chance to work toward a position where they would be willing to play either side at some point in the middle. Of course some might not like the introduction of chance.

Jedo · **#30**

jts wrote:

I think we can see how unsatisfying the pie rule is by thinking about how its application would work in a game like tennis. Good tennis players spend years perfecting their serve: learning to place it precisely, getting power and spin, and thinking about how the game will develop from the initial serve. Likewise, they spend a lot of time practicing returning serves, and getting good at that. The game of tennis is built around the player with first-move advantage trying to use that advantage to the hilt, and the other player trying to resist it, and the kinetic ballet that develops from that interaction.

So then if someone comes to me and tells me that playing sets has disadvantages, and he has a way to stop time immediately after the serve so that the second player can decide whether he would rather return the serve or let his opponent return it, and that henceforth tennis will be about having the most mediocre serve possible, so that neither player has any advantage... what do you think I would say about that? What would you say? What would serious tennis players say?

This is an interesting comparison. The one problem I see with it is that tennis solves the problem of the first move advantage by playing a series of games. In go that isn't in option (in an amateur tournament or casual play), so some other solution must be found. I tend to agree that komi is the best one.

Mef · **#31**

Jedo wrote:

jts wrote:

I think we can see how unsatisfying the pie rule is by thinking about how its application would work in a game like tennis. Good tennis players spend years perfecting their serve: learning to place it precisely, getting power and spin, and thinking about how the game will develop from the initial serve. Likewise, they spend a lot of time practicing returning serves, and getting good at that. The game of tennis is built around the player with first-move advantage trying to use that advantage to the hilt, and the other player trying to resist it, and the kinetic ballet that develops from that interaction.

So then if someone comes to me and tells me that playing sets has disadvantages, and he has a way to stop time immediately after the serve so that the second player can decide whether he would rather return the serve or let his opponent return it, and that henceforth tennis will be about having the most mediocre serve possible, so that neither player has any advantage... what do you think I would say about that? What would you say? What would serious tennis players say?

This is an interesting comparison. The one problem I see with it is that tennis solves the problem of the first move advantage by playing a series of games. In go that isn't in option (in an amateur tournament or casual play), so some other solution must be found. I tend to agree that komi is the best one.

Ah, I must have missed jts's post when I read the thread the first time -- I'm not convinced the comparison is so apt.

Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.

jts · **#32**

Mef wrote:

Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.

How... is that like a pie rule? I see rallying for serve as far closer to flipping your racket than "you slice, I choose".

hyperpape · **#33**

I don't know if this is what Mef was thinking, but it's not really like a pie rule, but it's similar in balancing by taking away the overpowering serve on that point, and then allocating the advantage of first serve based on the results of that "even" exchange.

Mef · **#34**

jts wrote:

Mef wrote:

Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.

How... is that like a pie rule? I see rallying for serve as far closer to flipping your racket than "you slice, I choose".

Perhaps not the exact pie rule - but it is similar to the "play for an equal position after 3 moves" method that has been proposed. If prior to the Nth shot one player feels the other has obtained an undue advantage, they can nullify the point by simply letting the ball pass. There is therefore no advantage to serving on the initial point.

HermanHiddema · **#35**

jts wrote:

Mef wrote:

Tennis actually does have a pie-rule that is often used - rallying for serve. Instead of freezing time, they simply agree that first serve is determined by an initial provision point is not valid until there have been some number (usually about four) of shots in play. The winner of that point then gets to serve.

How... is that like a pie rule? I see rallying for serve as far closer to flipping your racket than "you slice, I choose".

Well, since either player can chose to simply not hit the ball, that means that on the third shot, the player must try to hit the ball in such a way that:

1. It is not too hard, because then his opponent will just let it go.
2. It is not too easy, because then his opponent may be able to finish him off easily.

So the player tries to make a shot that is deliberately not the best shot he can make, but just good enough.

(And, of course, if the player feels unable to make a shot of just the right difficulty, because the shot he is receiving is too hard, he could just let it go...)

jts · **#36**

Mef wrote:

Perhaps not the exact pie rule - but it is similar to the "play for an equal position after 3 moves" method that has been proposed. If prior to the Nth shot one player feels the other has obtained an undue advantage, they can nullify the point by simply letting the ball pass. There is therefore no advantage to serving on the initial point.

Oh, I see what you mean. Sure - I guess you could use the four shots rule on every point, but my hypothetical scenario has a certain histrionic quality that yours lacks.

palapiku · **#37**

Despite all the arguments against the pie rule, I think it would work out very well in practice. The pros would work out pie-rule fuseki and everyone else would follow their lead, i.e. we would be in basically the same situation we're in right now.

Note that something like this already happened when komi was introduced. The existing opening had to change to accommodate the change in strategy. The pros figured out a new set of joseki and fuseki, and everyone else followed their lead.

And, sure it's conceptually ugly. But so is komi, we're just used to it. Hard to say which one is worse.

karaklis · **#38**

Another pie rule would be to negotiate the komi. Player A determines komi, and player B can choose the color to play with.

shapenaji · **#39**

karaklis wrote:

Another pie rule would be to negotiate the komi. Player A determines komi, and player B can choose the color to play with.

This makes a lot more sense to me

uPWarrior · **#40**

karaklis wrote:

Another pie rule would be to negotiate the komi. Player A determines komi, and player B can choose the color to play with.

That would be awful, as selecting the color would be a lot more advantageous.
I might believe 6.5 komi to be standardly fair, yet I might rather give 8 and take black, given my play style.

Incremental bidding could work out better: one player proposes to pay X so that the other takes white, and if he refuses, he needs to propose more so the other takes white, and so on.

The pie rule

Who is online