Life In 19x19

I have a freind who I recently introduced to go however I don't think his strategy is allowed or at least socially acceptable. I started the game normally by spreading out across the board and his entire strategy was to surrender control of the board to me and wait until I ran out of pieces and inable to play. After I ran out of pieces, he proceded to attack every piece that was relatively remote on board with me having no means to defend them. Is this allowed and if it is, is it wrong if I need to grab extra to keep playing?

I've never heard of this. Technically, the only way this can happen, if you have the correct number of stones (180 white, 181 black), is if there are one or more long kos.

Unfortunately, none of the people I play with seem to grasp the true concept of the game and focus all effort on combat, not territory. Many stones were captured and that helped lead to me running out of them.

AlanG2013 wrote:I have a freind who I recently introduced to go however I don't think his strategy is allowed or at least socially acceptable. I started the game normally by spreading out across the board and his entire strategy was to surrender control of the board to me and wait until I ran out of pieces and inable to play. After I ran out of pieces, he proceded to attack every piece that was relatively remote on board with me having no means to defend them. Is this allowed and if it is, is it wrong if I need to grab extra to keep playing?

Running out of stones isn't part of the game. If you don't have enough, generally you trade prisoners to get some back (x white stones for x black stones is obviously points neutral).

It looks like you're both relative beginners, so have you considered playing on a smaller board, if one is available? This would avoid the stones number problem whilst also making it easier to get a grasp of things - your full board game looks like a small board game that got bigger, and it's easier to see how to improve on the small board alone.

EDIT: Also, you say 'practically forced to fill in my territory'. If you play in your territory, this is presumably because he played there too himself? This should be points neutral, he gives you a point by playing there, you lose a point by playing to stop him. It sounds like you're misunderstanding a counting rule, perhaps you could give more information on how you play towards the end and count?

AlanG2013 wrote:Unfortunately, none of the people I play with seem to grasp the true concept of the game and focus all effort on combat, not territory. Many stones were captured and that helped lead to me running out of them.

The object of the game is to win, don't forget that. (Well, and the social object, to have fun...but as a game winning is the aim ). What they're doing isn't actually wrong.

In theory you have an infinite amount of stones. And by exchanging prisoners 180 on each side are enough in practice.
And personally I'd stop playing with somebody who pulled that on me.

amnal wrote:

AlanG2013 wrote:Unfortunately, none of the people I play with seem to grasp the true concept of the game and focus all effort on combat, not territory. Many stones were captured and that helped lead to me running out of them.

The object of the game is to win, don't forget that. (Well, and the social object, to have fun...but as a game winning is the aim ). What they're doing isn't actually wrong.

I understand that winning is the object I only question is that is winning by any means acceptable. I used every stone to prevent my large area from falling and I feel that never should have been required. I can't help but feel the game should end when the lines are drawn and not require that I turn my entire territory into a twisted network of eyes.

Get strong positions in all the corners (and maybe sides). Then play the center point. Then pass. That should use up no more than 20 of your stones.

If he passes, you win (I'm pretty sure, at least). If he plays, you can attack and start surrounding territory or killing him in the process. By the time you've run out of stones it's unlikely he will be able to successfully invade or attack your stones.

AlanG2013 wrote:

amnal wrote:

AlanG2013 wrote:Unfortunately, none of the people I play with seem to grasp the true concept of the game and focus all effort on combat, not territory. Many stones were captured and that helped lead to me running out of them.

The object of the game is to win, don't forget that. (Well, and the social object, to have fun...but as a game winning is the aim ). What they're doing isn't actually wrong.

I understand that winning is the object I only question is that is winning by any means acceptable. I used every stone to prevent my large area from falling and I feel that never should have been required. I can't help but feel the game should end when the lines are drawn and not require that I turn my entire territory into a twisted network of eyes.

Unless your opponent threatens to live or to kill you, you don't need to respond to their every move. Just pass and let them keep playing, as long as you're sure you're safe.

In any case, this isn't how the game is played...

My opponent waited until I was inable to move then surgically tore my territory appart from deep inside my lines. I was physically incapable of defending my territory. My answer to this was to go find more stones because I felt it seemed unfair that I should lose because I have no pieces left to play.

You're never intended to run out of pieces in Go. Most complete sets come with 181 black and 180 white. If you have that, you will never run out if you do prisoner exchange. If you need more pieces, work out a system where you can hand over some other token and take back prisoners that you can then use to play with.

At this point, it looks like you should be playing more on 9x9 and 13x13 to understand when you have to play. Passing is very often a good option.

AlanG2013 wrote:My opponent waited until I was inable to move then surgically tore my territory appart from deep inside my lines. I was physically incapable of defending my territory. My answer to this was to go find more stones because I felt it seemed unfair that I should lose because I have no pieces left to play.

That's not necessarily rude (if your opponent things running out of stones is part of the game), but it is definitely wrong. Getting more stones is the right thing to do. You should hopefully be able to convince him that invading randomly and not expecting to succeed gains nothing except prolonging the game - at which point it becomes rude for him to continue.

It is not rude, of course, if it works.

The amount of stones a player can use is essentially unlimited. On a 19x19 board, 180 stones per player usually suffice, but there are instances of games taking more moves than that. Then it is customary to exchange prisoners. This is practically always possible, because the board can only take 360 stones (361 intersections minus one that needs to be a liberty).

One advice, though: play on a smaller board at first, at least until you get a grasp of the rules. Playing in the opponent's territory does not lose him points.

AlanG2013 wrote:My opponent waited until I was inable to move then surgically tore my territory appart from deep inside my lines. I was physically incapable of defending my territory. My answer to this was to go find more stones because I felt it seemed unfair that I should lose because I have no pieces left to play.

You seem to think there's a rule that says if you have no more stones, you have to pass. This is wrong. There's no such rule. You made it up. Without checking what the real rule says.

This makes me suspect that there might be other rules you made up, too. I think you should carefully check if your understanding of the entire rules of go is correct.

Let's keep it simple. This is a rules question. Running out of stones is not part of the rules. If your opponent will not exchange captives, use pennies, pieces of paper, anything.

As for social acceptability, your opponent is trying to win under the rules as he understands them. Rather than question his ethics, I would inform him about the rules.