A unique perspective on Go

[MarkSteere]

Go has had a major impact on my life, even though I never at any time wanted to play it.  Just learning of Go was enough to kick off an excursion in game design.  I think it was the equipment and the mystique as much as the rule set.  

Now, coming full circle, I've accidentally designed a Go variant.   I initially called it Cancer, and reluctantly posted it textually without diagrams.  I didn't want it, but the Go community might have found the rule set conceptually interesting.  In response to complaints, now it's Redstone.  I played Redstone a few times (only after posting the rules), just to be a good sport.  The last time playing, I informed my opponent "Sorry, I can't handle this any longer," and resigned. 

Normally my new designs are met with silence, except when they're scoffed at.  I haven't seen anywhere near this much enthusiasm for a new game in the twenty years I've been designing.  Obviously that's because Redstone is exactly like Go, which is cheating horribly.  But it's piqued my pride of ownership. 

I really like watching expert Redstone play, which from my perspective is indiscernible from expert Go play.  (In the topazg-illluck game, I think it was essentially over before a single red stone had been played.)   The gameplay is intricate and beautiful.  There's a great extent of possibilities, even on a relatively small board. 

While Go/Redstone gameplay is a sight to behold, I've now seen enough to know that Oust is vastly....  Well, 'nuff said. 

I've looked at the Go tutorial at SL.  I may continue with that.   Not sure yet.  One thing is that everyone involved with abstract games seems to have some knowledge of Go - kind of a negative reinforcement.   I don't know how far I can get in my understanding of Go while not actually playing it, but I'd like to understand the discussion of Redstone relative to Go.  I've grown fond of my ugly duckling, exceeding all expectations as it has. 

[topazg]

I thought I'd write a game engine AI once, with the intention of eventually writing a Chess engine. I wrote a connect 4 one, and it was fairly easy to get it so strong I couldn't beat it, so I thought I'd go for the next tier of simplicity, and for some reason I picked Go.

I got the basic game mechanics working (not an engine, just rules and such), and thought I'd play a few games with a relative, so made an online version where I could play him. That proved quite easy and fun, and decided to make OGS. It sucked me in, and the rest, as they say, is history.

[MarkSteere]

decided to make OGS.

Nice

[jts]

I don't know how far I can get in my understanding of Go while not actually playing it...

I can't speak for everyone, of course. But I tried to pick up Go a number of times before it finally took in 2010. It was only when I started playing that I realized Go is a rather deep rabbit hole. I don't think I'm more than a quarter of the way down; I'm just hoping there will be cake at the bottom.

Fortunately, there are plenty of people on KGS who will be happy to help you if you decide you'd like to play.

[illluck]

I suspect that even at high dan it may not be a quarter of the way :p

I think it was Hideyuki Fujisawa who once remarked that he knows perhaps 6 to 7 parts out of 100.

[RobertJasiek]

hoping there will be cake at the bottom.

What kind of cake do you expect?

[p2501]

hoping there will be cake at the bottom.

What kind of cake do you expect?

Chocolate brownyish.

[RobertJasiek]

For those, go to the small tournaments and prey that they reward food instead of books:( Play 0:5 if you like lemons.

[Dusk Eagle]

There are tournaments that give you cake if you do well and lemons if you don't? The tournament organizers must be major Portal fans.

[Bill Spight]

There are tournaments that give you cake if you do well and lemons if you don't? The tournament organizers must be major Portal fans.

How about lemon cake?

I remember at a bridge tournament in Tokyo I won a tin of seaweed, and at a go tournament in Honolulu I won a gallon of soy sauce.