Daniel Lepage on 17 Jul 2003 04:00:01 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Political Go 


On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 10:58  PM, Rob Speer wrote:


On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 07:29:27PM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:

So, if Player A has a stone that is surrounded by two of Player B's
stones and two of Player C's stones, then during B's and C's turns, A's 
stone stays because only half the stones around it are on the other
side;


If B and C aren't allied, then yes. Should it work differently?


but when A's turn ends, eir stone disappears because B and C are
both on the other side? Unless e's ringed in B&C's stones, 'cause
they're both considered enemies?


I can't quite tell what you're talking about, but something like that.
It seems kind of strange that B and C wouldn't attack A until A did something... this implies that A could keep eir pieces alive by simply refusing to make a move until the situation changed, because as long as A doesn't move and B&C don't ally, B and C will never be united against A. 


Scoring
-------
(Scoring is the most complex part of Go, and I'm simplifying a bit
here.)
When the game ends, the players should come to a consensus about which 
stones on the board could be captured without any Alliances changing.
These stones are removed from the board.


Who the whatnow? You mean, all the stones that are surrounded by
enemies from their owner's perspective? or from anyone's perspective?
I suppose the "perspective" thing doesn't work. But it's any stones that 
aren't in two-eye groups, or in groups that would become two-eyed if
both players played optimally. If there's any doubt about which stones
those are, then people should have played.
Oh, you're saying that gameplay stops when we all lose interest; and then we make guesses about what would happen if we had kept going? 


Don't the scores rise quite quickly based on the size and shape of the
territories? Cause if, say, I have stone in the middle of an otherwise
empty 3x3 block, I'm adjacent to 57 territories, by this rule. That's a 
lotta points.


57 territories? How the heck?

This is what I mean by territory:

#####..
..#..##  If the #'s are allied pieces, they are surrounding 9 points of
..#...# territory. The two on the outside may or may not belong to them.
Well, the way you defined it, any interconnected mass of emptiness is a Territory, regardless of whether or not it's connected to another Territory. So the pattern: 

...
.#.
...

contains these "territories:" ( O = part of Territory )

|O..|  |.O.|  |..O|  |...|  |...|  |...|  |...|  |...|
|.#.| |.#.| |.#.| |.#O| |.#.| |.#.| |.#.| |O#.| One square in territory 
|...|  |...|  |...|  |...|  |..O|  |.O.|  |O..|  |...|

|OO.|  |.OO|  |..O|  |...|  |...|  |...|  |...|  |O..|
|.#.| |.#.| |.#O| |.#O| |.#.| |.#.| |O#.| |O#.| Two squares in territory 
|...|  |...|  |...|  |..O|  |.OO|  |OO.|  |O..|  |...|

|OOO|  |.OO|  |..O|  |...|  |...|  |...|  |O..|  |OO.|
|.#.|  |.#O|  |.#O|  |.#O|  |.#.|  |O#.|  |O#.|  |O#.|  Three
|...|  |...|  |..O|  |.OO|  |OOO|  |OO.|  |O..|  |...|

|OOO|  |.OO|  |..O|  |...|  |...|  |O..|  |OO.|  |OOO|
|.#O|  |.#O|  |.#O|  |.#O|  |O#.|  |O#.|  |O#.|  |O#.|  Four
|...|  |..O|  |.OO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OO.|  |O..|  |...|

|OOO|  |.OO|  |..O|  |...|  |O..|  |OO.|  |OOO|  |OOO|
|.#O|  |.#O|  |.#O|  |O#O|  |O#.|  |O#.|  |O#.|  |O#O|  Five
|..O|  |.OO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OO.|  |O..|  |...|

|OOO|  |.OO|  |..O|  |O..|  |OO.|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OOO|
|.#O|  |.#O|  |O#O|  |O#O|  |O#.|  |O#.|  |O#O|  |O#O|  Six
|.OO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OO.|  |O..|  |..O|

|OOO|  |.OO|  |O.O|  |OO.|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OOO|
|.#O|  |O#O|  |O#O|  |O#O|  |O#.|  |O#O|  |O#O|  |O#O|  Seven
|OOO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OOO|  |OO.|  |O.O|  |.OO|

|OOO|
|O#O|                                                   Eight
|OOO|
would contain three territories: the first period is a set of empty squares, the second period is a set of empty squares, and the two taken together are a set of empty squares. You haven't specified that a territory must be the *largest* possible set containing a given empty square.
Each player also loses a point for each of eir stones that was captured 
during the game.


Seems to me that people can keep playing stones until the board fills
up. Then scoring kicks in, and nobody gets any points at all. In fact,
almost every person who plays this game should come out with few points 
than they went in with.


Are you saying that people would play inside their own territories just
to stop the game from ending? Then whoever doesn't play inside eir own
territory has points.
Well, actually, I'd forgotten about the possibility of those invulnerable structures. So I figured the game would never end unless the board was full of stones. Sorry, I've been playing Othello and Ataxx a lot lately; I'm used to a full board being the end of the game. 


BTW, would you mind if I ripped off some of this rule to establish an
Othello or Ataxx subgame?


Go for it.

--
Rob Speer

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss



_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss