Jump to content


Spartacus

'GO' Rules


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#16 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,450 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 24 June 2009 - 05:34 AM

"Endgame (Yose)

In the endgame, if the game is close, moves that are small are still worth some points, some more than others. One must chose which of these moves is more urgent to play based not only on the points it may gain, but on whether that move is sente. Yose refers to a specific kind of endgame play, which yields a reduction for your opponent.

Generally, in the endgame, all the territory is staked out - there is no more to be gained.
However, there are still points to be made, as well as possible ways of reducing small amounts of your opponents territory. A simple example would be a move that is Dame (neutral point for you) but when its filled in, its sente, requiring white to fill a stone in his territory to answer. We say this is 'a one point reduction, with sente.' "

http://www.japan-101...imple_rules.htm

#17 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,193 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 12 January 2012 - 07:48 PM

I am fascinated mostly because I am apparently too dense to comprehend this game. :tomatoes

#18 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,450 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:36 PM

I know. Then for me suddenly a penny dropped and I had a glimpse of possibilities. Then it took me a looong time to go to no handicaps with those who taught me to where I had a real win. Even then black remains black till three victories in a row.
It's really in the playf the clarity comes. Put a note up on a local notice board and sooner or later you'll find a group of players. Or challenge me to a game. Or Norman for that matter. He got pretty good.

#19 Norman Pratt

Norman Pratt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Essex

Posted 15 January 2012 - 12:26 AM

The complexity of 'Go' is demonstrated by that fact that it has proved difficult to get a computer to play it convincingly (in contrast to, say, what happened with Chess.) I believe that this is still the case, and that the 'Go' experts still defeat any computer competition. Having said that, what progress I have made recently has been by playing a computer version of 'Go', using a 13 X 13 board, and by playing getting to learn some of the many different patterns that crop up. (At the moment the computer's memory generally wins over mine, but my memory is improving!)

#20 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,450 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 16 January 2012 - 02:25 PM

Good to hear from you, Norman. Yeah, the complexity is phenomenal (there is a Professor in China that's written a, to me, very good 19 x 19 software, it should be, it was, available as a free download. I never bested it but I'm totally outclassed by low dan players too, though perhaps not with the same sense of doom...) Japanese players have tried to increase it to (the history is one of continually increasing lines) 21 (for symmetry) and found it too complex, so 19 seems to be a real ceiling.
Now shapes is good one. Fundamental. It's good to consider the shape of the strength they project as well particularly early when setting up in the beginning part.
A kind of off beat story here is how after ambassadors brought the game from China to Japan it took the Japanese some time to begin to beat the Chinese and I think one part was they recognised what kind of particular 'power' the central point (which has no corresponding mirror point on the board) exerts.

#21 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,450 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:35 PM

Probably the main difference between Sun Tzu's 'The art of War' and the art of GO is that deception is not possible in GO. ( the feint is a clever strategy but not often talked about in GO literature (in the Sun Tzu vernacular) but The Art of War is built on it : as deception.)

Players decieive their selves in GO.

Technically anyone can win a game and the simple rules and the handicap system levels the playing field to the extent that in the end there is no opponent but self.

edit clarification

Edited by John Dolva, 12 October 2012 - 05:48 PM.


#22 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,450 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:22 PM

For those interested in learning this game here is a site dedicated to it. The features are pretty amazing. One can play as guest or join. Very well moderated and very helpful chatroom.

http://www.gokgs.com/applet.jsp

#23 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,450 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:47 PM

Probably the main difference between Sun Tzu's 'The art of War' and the art of GO is that deception is not possible in GO. ( the feint is a clever strategy but not often talked about in GO literature (in the Sun Tzu vernacular) but The Art of War is built on it : as deception.)

Players decieive their selves in GO.

Technically anyone can win a game and the simple rules and the handicap system levels the playing field to the extent that in the end there is no opponent but self.

edit clarification


I continue to contemplate this aspect of GO and Sun Tzu.

Finding myself in possession of a couple of copies of it with commentary and slightly differing translations (of the Art of War), I feel clearer about this point.

However. There are many players (you'll find them at the site above) who, I think, start out with viewing the game as such and incorporate what can be learnt in order to achieve War oriented goals and, I think, risk missing out on the true essence of a game of GO which always end up being a battle with self and therefore an avenue for self discovery. This inner contemplation takes time. Specifying a game with no time limit (in the game options) reduces the numbers of people who will take you on. Many prefer to perfect fast play which tends to be formulaeic as a consequence whereas the careful player can beat a better player simply through implementing basics and understanding the natural evolution of a game and adopt a strategy that is pre-emptively responsive rather than defensive. IOW having, in the final analysis more SENTE.

Anyway that's roughly where I'm at re this matter at this point.

edit typo

Edited by John Dolva, 15 January 2013 - 06:48 PM.


#24 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,450 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:03 PM


Probably the main difference between Sun Tzu's 'The art of War' and the art of GO is that deception is not possible in GO. ( the feint is a clever strategy but not often talked about in GO literature (in the Sun Tzu vernacular) but The Art of War is built on it : as deception.)

Players decieive their selves in GO.

Technically anyone can win a game and the simple rules and the handicap system levels the playing field to the extent that in the end there is no opponent but self.

edit clarification


I continue to contemplate this aspect of GO and Sun Tzu.

Finding myself in possession of a couple of copies of it with commentary and slightly differing translations (of the Art of War), I feel clearer about this point.

However. There are many players (you'll find them at the site above) who, I think, start out with viewing the game as such and incorporate what can be learnt in order to achieve War oriented goals and, I think, risk missing out on the true essence of a game of GO which always end up being a battle with self and therefore an avenue for self discovery. This inner contemplation takes time. Specifying a game with no time limit (in the game options) reduces the numbers of people who will take you on. Many prefer to perfect fast play which tends to be formulaeic as a consequence whereas the careful player can beat a better player simply through implementing basics and understanding the natural evolution of a game and adopt a strategy that is pre-emptively responsive rather than defensive. IOW having, in the final analysis more SENTE.

Anyway that's roughly where I'm at re this matter at this point.

edit typo

In rereading I see I need to rephrase some.

"better": better really means degree. Reaching level -5 is not that hard. The slog up the ladder to 9-Dan is a long one. With experianece and study a fast game can facilitate the rising in ranking without necessarily nurture the individual creativity that a fundamentally good player can use to defeat higher ranking players without adhering to formulaes or known sequences and tested responses. (This is what I mean by formulaeic play). Part of this is what can make GO so beautiful. It is far, far more complex than chess and perhaps all games are unique, like a snowflake.

#25 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,450 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 27 November 2013 - 01:11 PM

 

 

Probably the main difference between Sun Tzu's 'The art of War' and the art of GO is that deception is not possible in GO. ( the feint is a clever strategy but not often talked about in GO literature (in the Sun Tzu vernacular) but The Art of War is built on it : as deception.)

Players decieive their selves in GO.

Technically anyone can win a game and the simple rules and the handicap system levels the playing field to the extent that in the end there is no opponent but self.

edit clarification


I continue to contemplate this aspect of GO and Sun Tzu.

Finding myself in possession of a couple of copies of it with commentary and slightly differing translations (of the Art of War), I feel clearer about this point.

However. There are many players (you'll find them at the site above) who, I think, start out with viewing the game as such and incorporate what can be learnt in order to achieve War oriented goals and, I think, risk missing out on the true essence of a game of GO which always end up being a battle with self and therefore an avenue for self discovery. This inner contemplation takes time. Specifying a game with no time limit (in the game options) reduces the numbers of people who will take you on. Many prefer to perfect fast play which tends to be formulaeic as a consequence whereas the careful player can beat a better player simply through implementing basics and understanding the natural evolution of a game and adopt a strategy that is pre-emptively responsive rather than defensive. IOW having, in the final analysis more SENTE.

Anyway that's roughly where I'm at re this matter at this point.

edit typo

 

In rereading I see I need to rephrase some.

"better": better really means degree. Reaching level -5 is not that hard. The slog up the ladder to 9-Dan is a long one. With experianece and study a fast game can facilitate the rising in ranking without necessarily nurture the individual creativity that a fundamentally good player can use to defeat higher ranking players without adhering to formulaes or known sequences and tested responses. (This is what I mean by formulaeic play). Part of this is what can make GO so beautiful. It is far, far more complex than chess and perhaps all games are unique, like a snowflake.

 

 

I continue to contemplate this. When I read my clarification I think it is not. Perhaps that's a problem with having english as a second language hwere I think in a mix of grammar and end up writing things that are not all that clear while it seems clear to me. The point I was trying to make is that there seem to be two ways that people play GO. Some people take winning quick too seriously and there are those that take each move of a game seriously. I find more success when I play slowly and thoughtfully.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users