Diplomatic Go 🗡 The First Game

Forum Games
226

The current game is definitely not decided, so it wouldn’t make sense to suggest a ranking, someone would definitely disagree. Just as you shouldn’t resign if you still might have some realistic chance of winning, you shouldn’t accept a ranking if you think you have a realistic chance of getting a better placement by playing on.

We should also define what constitutes a “better placement” in the presence of ties. Let’s say for simplicity that we go to scoring with scores 20, 20, 17, 12, 12. Some would call this a tie for first place, one player on third place, and a tie for fourth place. I’m guessing it probably makes more sense in this context to call it a tie for second place, one player on third place, and a tie for last place (since winning alone should be preferable to winning in a draw). I think an equivalent way of saying this is that each player wants to maximize the number of players below them in the ranking.

But let’s say you’re choosing between a position where you share second place with another player (and there is no first place), and a position where they get first, you get second. Surely the first option should be preferable for you?

227

Putting aside the possibility of a draw, what if the objective was to simply maximize your own points? I personally feel like this would be simple and effective. Is there an argument against this?

And to be clear, this would mean that being second with 20 points is preferable to getting first with 19 points.

228

That’s also a valid possibility, slightly more different from normal go, but I think it would work quite well.

I would still want to add some incentive for players which might not get any living groups at the end. You could do “maximize your points, or else how long you stay in the game”, but maybe that’s what you were suggesting?

229

Maybe. I’m not sure what are the implications on the gameplay. Players who are almost eliminated would keep playing into other player’s territories to survive a little longer.

230

But I definetely agree that some kind of incentive for players who are almost eliminated, would be great.

231

Indeed, I was thinking it’s a good thing to make this the explicit goal, since the players will probably do just that anyways. I think as long as a player isn’t completely eliminated, they should have something to fight for, and this is just one suggestion that I think would make sense.

232

They could play one stone inside a fixed territory, telling the “owner” they won’t try anything weird. Then just wait until the end of the game, where the stone is removed during the agreement phase, thus staying in the game as long as possible.

Edit: And if they are really dedicated to staying in game as long as possible, they would not mark their stone as dead during the agreement phase, forcing the “owner”, who of course wishes to claim that territory, to actually remove it.

I don’t know, this just feels kind of weird to me if I think about it.

233

Hm yeah, that could sometimes be an issue. But I think usually, there will be some other player working to eliminate that player (either because they don’t want to be eliminated first, or because they only have a limited number of eyes, so need to eliminate them to ensure safe life). So I believe it’s a slight improvement to the current rules, but of course it still has some flaws.

I would probably remove the stone agreement phase, we either play it out to a scorable position, or agree to a proposed score/ranking if the result is clear to everyone. Removing stones from the board is a part of the game, in my opinion. The reason we do it by agreement in regular go is that it is so common that it’s trivial to remove stones. In this game, I’m not so sure, there might be some complicated positions where some players can work together to keep some “dead” stones on the board indefinitely.

In any case, I’ll keep thinking about it. I hope we’re getting a little closer to a good solution with each discussion.

Edit: I also want to clarify that I think @yebellz did a great job with the initial rules for this variant; I’m not in any way unhappy with how the first game is turning out. I just enjoy discussion about rules.

1 Like
234

Round 21 has ended

R21-a
R21-a1712×1711 174 KB

  • yellow@李ć»ș柔2 was the only player that did not submit moves and does not have any extra days left, and hence they did not place any stones with round
  • red@le_4TC and white@martin3141 collided for their first choices at J4
  • The other players placed stones at their first choices
  • white@martin3141 placed at their second choice at B3
  • red@le_4TC second and third choices were H5 and B3, which were already occupied by earlier choices by other players
  • Two stones at D7 and D8 are captured

Round 22 has begun and will end on 2020-09-12T00:00:00Z

R22
R221712×1711 162 KB

Editable board

Since yellow@李ć»ș柔2 has missed a move, I will seek a replacement, unless they indicate to me that they intend to continue playing.

3 Likes
235

At this moment, I’m not sure if I’m still comfortable with a kibitzer taking over yellow. But outside of that, sure :slight_smile:

1 Like
236

Using a kibitzer as a replacement would be the absolute last resort, and I would only do that with unanimous support by all of the players.

4 Likes
237

I would like to propose a draw by mutual agreement. I know this sounds premature, but let me explain my thought process.

I am sure at this point, that I can’t win the game anymore. Even if I can achieve a shape like this in the upper-left

eyes


 the stone at A9 can be captured if le_4TC and Vsotvep cooperate. This means that, if I have the most territory at the end, they will surely capture me.

This is why I’m convinced that the best outcome I can hope for is a draw by mutual agreement. Of course if I’m the only person who votes for draw, that won’t do anything. So if I want to play this game seriously, I have to try and convince the other players that a draw is not a bad result for them. And I believe that my best chance of doing so is now, while there is still a bit of unclaimed area on the board. Otherwise I might not be able to hand you the following ultimatum:

I am going to vote for DRAW from now on. I believe that Haze is also fine with a draw and will do the same. My actions after the next round will depend on who votes for a draw (note that the draw votes will get revealed):

1.) If Vsotvep votes for draw but le_4TC doesn’t, I will work together with Vsotvep and Haze and try to capture le_4TC, which should be doable considering that le_4TC has only 3 eyes.

Edit: I should add that, in this case, le_4TC cannot eliminate Haze as long as neither I nor Vsotvep fills the liberties of E8.

2.) If le_4TC votes for draw but Vsotvep does not, I will cooperate with le_4TC. If I lose I have no preference as to who wins, right?

3.) If neither Vsotvep nor le_4TC votes for draw, I will cooperate with le_4TC as well.

I hope you don’t see this as disrespectful. Since this is a diplomatic go game, I figured that this kind of ultimatum is ok.

238

So you’re just giving le_4TC the win?

239

If you don’t vote for draw, then yes.

240

Before getting into the details of the diplomacy, let me just remind everyone that when voting for a draw you have to specify which players are excluded from the draw. So in your proposal Martin, you should clarify which players you think everyone should include in the draw.

241

I asked yebellz about this, and they basically answered that there is no preference when it comes to a 5-, 4- or 3-player draw. I would be fine with excluding yellow at this point, but the draw must include le_4TC, Vsotvep, Haze and me.

242

My feelings are that a draw would be a good conclusion if all players involved see no possible way to win. We are currently not in such a position, so I don’t feel like a draw should be done at this moment in time.

Also, it would feel very unsatisfactory to me if the game ends here and now with a draw.

When I asked yebellz about the value of the draw, they answered that the players get to decide the value of these outcomes. I consider a 4-player draw worth less than a 3-player draw.

243

Regardless of your arguments, I intend to stick to what I said above. It is up to you what to do with it.

244

In that case, I intend to help le_4TC as well, guaranteeing a loss for you. If I go down, at least you’ll go down with me, right?

245

Even though I have no intentions of cooperating towards a draw at the moment, let me just say that this is quite an interesting turn of events, and I applaud you for trying to come up with a good ultimatum :slight_smile:

This also highlights the importance of deciding before the next game how we should rank different drawing situations. I agree with Vsotvep that a 4-player draw should definitely be worth less than a 3-player draw.

1 Like