Diplomatic Go 🗡 The Second Game

I would like to found a Double Digit Kyute alliance. IIRC, at least two other players also fall into this category, right? Let’s be the underdogs everybody roots for! I’m 13k, 'fess up y’all :slight_smile:


To quote Artaphernes’ remark to Histiaios: You made that shoe, but Aristagoras had to wear it.


24k atm.

Ive gone down recently from mostly random losing


25k, Eternal TPK.


around 10k, in reality probably less (or more?) because I won against dans in timeout.

1 Like

I have mixed feelings about bringing up go ranks here, especially the thought of creating an alliance based on ranks. When discussing the more intricate details of the rules in a diplomatic game, yebellz wrote

Although I cannot completely prevent it, I am trying not to let factors outside the game influence my decisions, and go ranks fall into that category.

On the other hand I don’t want to be a fun killer, and I assume nobody can view the game in a completely isolated way anyway. I would rather not announce it publicly, but if you want to know my go rank, you can check on my OGS profile page.


I think it’s impossible to completely remove bias, but we should try.

Further, I think that Go skill is only a small part of Diplomatic Go skill. In fact, I think that negotiation and communication skills are far more important than the rest.


In the absence of a move submission from @Maharani, Round 7 will be extended 24 hours.

The new deadline is 2020-10-17T20:00:00Z.


Sorry y’all, real life got busy for a hot minute.


I’ll try to remain peaceful as long as possible. I’m playing at H5. (No rule against announcing my move here, right?)


Of course not! Depending on the situation, other players may use that information against you… but then you might also be bluffing. So there’s some interesting strategic uses of announcing moves.


End of Round 7

image @martin3141 collided with their first move at C4 with a preexisting stone, and with their second move at D2 with the first stone placed by image @PiggyStardust, but succeeded in placing their third choice of E2. Other than that, all players succeeded in playing their first choice.

As the only group without liberties, image @Sanonius’ group at D3 is removed from the board.

Any player with no stones on the board is eliminated at the start of Round 8. Since all players enter round 8 with stones on the board, nobody is eliminated.

Player 1st
image @le_4TC N10
image @PiggyStardust D2
image @martin3141 C4 D2 E2
image @Gia K8
image @Sanonius L2
image @Haze_with_a_Z K6
image @yebellz G4
image @Maharani H5

Round 8

In order not to be eliminated at the start of next round, a player needs 1 or more stones on the board.

Round 8 starts with the following position.

Editable demo board

Please submit your next moves before 2020-10-18T20:00:00Z

Current number of stones per player:


Exciting with such an early big capture! If we had gone with the original N/2-rule I proposed, pink would already be eliminated here. I think this is a good argument for N/2 - 3 being better, since pink still has a promising position in the lower right.

Hm, isn’t the requirement for next round still only 1 stone? (8/2 - 3 = 1)


Yes, you’re right, players with less than 1 stone will be eliminated, hence players need 1 stone or more to survive the next round.

I’m not very good with numbers


When you made the previous post about needing at least one stone after 7 rounds, I was somehow completely convinced that you had made a mistake, and it was not until I started writing the message explaining why that was wrong that I realized that it was completely correct :stuck_out_tongue:

(point being, N/2 - 3 is deceptively confusing)


It caught me by surprise as well. I was planning on announcing it in round 5 if I had known it was a thing by then.

The confusing thing is that the start of round 7 is immediately after round 6 ends, thus the moves done during round 6 are actually the ones that affect the count at the start of round 7.


Yeah, numbering the rounds gets potentially confusing. I like to think in terms of “When I have placed N stones on the board in total, I must have at least N/2 - 3 stones still on the board” (or to be technically correct, “When I’ve had N chances to place a stone on the board…”)


We could make it N/2 - 2.75, which also solves the confusion.


Unfortunately I think the more precise number might add about as much confusion as the “less than/less than or equal” issue :stuck_out_tongue:

Probably it won’t be a big problem from now on anyways, since the requirement increases very predictably: there are two rounds with a requirement of 1 stone, then two rounds with a requirement of 2 stones, etc.


My respect goes to @PiggyStardust for staying loyal to their friend @martin3141 and helping him to keep bugcat and me out of that corner, even if they could have worked towards the top-left, leaving martin and me fighting it out. Well played. :handshake:

Now I wonder what advantage @yebellz is looking for down here and what strange deal him and Piggy have about that top-left corner.