Boardgame GO?

[Father Beast]

I have been poking at this for a few months, after an abortive try a few years ago. I got a decent windows version (igowin), and every time I play I get totally plastered.

this game fascinates me since it is simpler and deeper than chess at the same time, sort of like othello on steroids. its age may make it one of the oldest turned based games, period.

on an interesting note for those who have read/are reading the Wheel Of Time series, I'm almost certain that when they talk about the game of stones that Thom Merrilin enjoys, they're talking about GO. they also say that those who are talnted at stones are talented at Daes Daemar. anywayy...

anyone else played GO? anyone any good at it? because of my incredible suckiness at this (computer plasters me at easiest difficulty time after time) I checked out a GO for beginners guide at the library.

so tell if you like it

[Dauphin]

Is that similar to the game you can play with a pen and paper and a home made grid?

[DrSpike]

Go is fascinating to me, because computers suck so bad at it (sorry FB ). I am referring of course to the higher levels of the game, where it turns out the lack of rules for good play mean computers cannot get close to the top players.

[Urban Ranger]

There are no rules if you talk about something like algorithms that you can follow. Surely however there are rules in the sense of guidelines. There are a bunch of do's and don'ts. Things like you should go after the corners, then the edges, and finally the centre.

It is fascinating because of the almost infinite number of combinations you can have.

[DrSpike]

Sure, but what is good is so situation dependent at go that computers suck compared to other games.........whereas a more complex game like chess is more amenable to computer play, because in short term calculations the computer is king.

[Scouse Gits]

Yes GO is a great game - I believe that it is the game with the largest literature in the world - MUCH more than chess - of course most of the literature is in Chinese & Japanese.

I learned it as an undergraduate - from a national master - somewhat humbling, but have very few chances to play since those halcyon days so my skills are now somewhat (read completely) atrophied, I can recommend the text Go & GoMoku by Laskar (the chess master) as a decent introduction (if it still be in print) - I recall finding this one of the more accessible texts as many of the oriental texts (in translation of course) dwell too heavily upon the philosophy and not sufficiently upon the mechanics for my taste.

SG[1]

[Dauphin]

Presumably when you have humans playing they come up with strategies that can be emulated by an AI. Regardless of the number of possible moves available a computer can be given intuition akin to that of a human.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
I learned it as an undergraduate - from a national master - somewhat humbling, but have very few chances to play since those halcyon days so my skills are now somewhat (read completely) atrophied, I can recommend the text Go & GoMoku by Laskar (the chess master) as a decent introduction (if it still be in print) - I recall finding this one of the more accessible texts as many of the oriental texts (in translation of course) dwell too heavily upon the philosophy and not sufficiently upon the mechanics for my taste.

Gomoku is a completely different game though. You use the same board and stones, but the rules are entirely different. There is no capture, and the first person who gets five stones in a row wins.

It still is fun game, and much more interesting than reversi.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Presumably when you have humans playing they come up with strategies that can be emulated by an AI. Regardless of the number of possible moves available a computer can be given intuition akin to that of a human.

In theory yes, but computers totally suck at strategic levels, which is what Go is. Unlike chess which is purely tactical, the best human players have a hard time telling you how they evaluate board positions. If you read some of the literature it keeps using words such as "feel" and "gut feeling." In other words you are supposed to look at the entire board and let your subconsciousness to do the work. Sometimes there are look ahead analyses, but mostly limited to (comparatively speaking) tactical situations, not when you put down a stone in the middle of nowhere and have it exert influence 30, 40 moves later.

[War4ever]

not sure if i have played go....can someone describe it to me in more detail, ie the objective and how to achieve it....seems to me i have tried this but as i rack my brain, i can't seem to recall

[Zkribbler]

The board is a grid. One play has white stones, the other black.

The players alternate putting their stones down on the intersections on the grid and try to surround the other players stones.

[Urban Ranger]

That's part of it, the main objective is to surround as much "territory" as possible.

[Father Beast]

I'm reading "Go for beginners" by Iwamoto. it seems to be decent at explaining the rules and such for us complete novices.

here's an interesting quote "When the philosopher Hsuan-Tzu lay dying, he remarked to the people around hime that if heaven would see fit to grant him another one hundred years of life, he would spend fifty of them playing Go. To a dedicate player, this statement shows a certain lack of enthusiasm. but it should be considered that the people around him were non players, and he didn't want them to think he had completely flipped out."

I am enjoying the exercises, and am thinking of getting myself a Go board so I can see the board situation more clearly.

[War4ever]

when you surround, do you mean completely...is there a go website on the web i could look at...

i don't think i have played this, but the strategy seems like chinese checkers, but with surrrounding instead of travelling???

[DrSpike]

It's othello on steroids.