Diplomatic Go

[Vsotvep]

@shinuito

On the other hand though, it probably encourages playing throwaway moves every now and then to stay in the game. Imagine round n-1 and a player has n/2-1 stones. If they risk playing important moves which are likely collisions they might end up passing and be eliminated so they play a safe bad move (maybe in someone else’s territory eg eyespace of an alive group.) it’s kind of like a timesuji for a round, a roundsuji!

But, not playing those important moves likely means these players get into a worse position (i.e. are more easily captured) anyways, won’t they?

[shinuito]

Well not really. I just mean important in terms of say local strategy. You could be pass alive with a certain amount eyes/liberties but key moves might help and ally and maybe collisions are necessary. But it could be risky if you’re close to the number of stones for elimination.

Adding a stone to a group could arguably be more useful than playing a move that doesn’t reduce eyespace or even threaten anything just to have one more stone on the board.

Also I imagine on bigger boards you could just aim to have one giant group with lots of liberties to outlast other players. I guess eye spaces are more stable short term in terms of capturing races but ultimately life and death is being decided by the number of stones on the board, not number of eyes.

[martin3141]

@shinuito

If they risk playing important moves which are likely collisions they might end up passing and be eliminated so they play a safe bad move (maybe in someone else’s territory eg eyespace of an alive group.)

In my opinion this is anyway the case. Placing no stone in a round is usually a bad thing. So one weights the options of submitting important places risking collisions, and choosing less important places that are safer from collisions, as their move choices.

The importance of this becomes apparent when a player is almost eliminated. But I don’t think it is necessarily less important in other scenarios.

[antonTobi]

@shinuito

Also I imagine on bigger boards you could just aim to have one giant group with lots of liberties to outlast other players.

I don’t believe this would be a good strategy. The x/2 limit rises quite slowly, so players with smaller groups but more eyes will have time to kill you before they’re eliminated. As long as they have room to place stones (to surround your group, in this case), they run no risk of being eliminated.

[shinuito]

@martin3141

In my opinion this is anyway the case. Placing no stone in a round is usually a bad thing.

You’re missing the point, which probably means I’m not explaining well.

Suppose a player can only submit three moves in a round.

1. Strategic collision
2. Strategic move, still likely to be a collision
3. Some other useful move? Or a safe useless move?

The choice of strategy will depend heavily on how close you are to being eliminated based on the round, not by how likely you are to be captured.

You might have to play a useless move to avoid elimination over a good move but risking a final collision and unintentionally passing.

[shinuito]

But then again the number of eyes only has to match the number of enemies to be fair.

[antonTobi]

If you’re close to being eliminated, you probably have very small chances of winning anyways, so you should definitely prefer the stronger but riskier option I think. Cases where you’re “right at the edge” will anyways be quite uncommon, usually you will be well above it, and once one of you’re big groups is captured, you drop below it.

It’s of course very possible that there are some flaws with the proposal, so I’m glad you’re looking for them

[shinuito]

@le_4TC

I definitely think there might be some flaws with the proposal, so I’m glad you’re looking for them

Cheers. I’m just throwing out ideas, and seeing others opinions. It won’t really affect me as a kibitzer anyway

[Vsotvep]

@shinuito, perhaps an example on a board would help?

[Groin]

Sure it’s too late for that game, but in anyway I am still thinking about a kind of “capture the flag” goal (flag=tengen ofc). That could make the game a bit more lively with a fun goal, and still have some nice new perspective like balance between security (corners) and catching the center.
Edit: I messed up; should have answered in the diploma tic (variants) thread, my bad.

[Vsotvep]

@Groin

I am still thinking about a kind of “capture the flag” goal (flag=tengen ofc)

It could be a bit like the goals in Risk. Another kind of goal could be that each player gets assigned one or two enemies, and they win as long as their enemies are defeated.

@Groin

Edit: I messed up; should have answered in the diploma tic (variants) thread, my bad.

No problem, I fixed it

[Maharani]

@yebellz

Since communication is allowed before each move, avoiding collisions is not really just a matter of luck, but rather a matter of how one can understand and influence the intentions of others, and adapt to the information gained through diplomacy.

For some reason, I totally did not consider that this was possible even before the first move.

[martin3141]

@shinuito

The choice of strategy will depend heavily on how close you are to being eliminated based on the round, not by how likely you are to be captured.

I agree that avoiding elimination will be the highest priority and heavily influence the decisions.

@shinuito

Also I imagine on bigger boards you could just aim to have one giant group with lots of liberties to outlast other players. I guess eye spaces are more stable short term in terms of capturing races but ultimately life and death is being decided by the number of stones on the board, not number of eyes.

With the elimination threshold creeping closer, players will presumably expand their areas as far as possible. I imagine an eyeless dragon would lose their outside-liberties fast unless these liberties are only accessible to few opponents. In any case, surrounding territory still seems very important with this elimination rule. The territory you surround is secured space that you can fill in with stones once expanding on dame-points becomes impossible.

[antonTobi]

Rules draft for the second game

I took the original rules by @yebellz and made some modifications according to what we have discussed. I’ll make this post a wiki so that anyone can contribute to it. Once we all agree, @Vsotvep can copy the rules from here to the new official game thread.

Basic rules

1. The board is a standard 13x13 go board.
2. There are 8 players, each using a unique color of stone.
3. The game will be played here on these forums, in another dedicated thread that will be created, and via private messages for private discussion between the players and arbiter.
4. The game involves multiple rounds of play, where each player may (attempt to) place a single stone in each round.
5. If a player feels that another has broken the rules, please only contact the game arbiter who will work on how to resolve the issue and serve as the judge to settle any disputes about conduct.

General Order of Play

1. Each round of play lasts 24 hours. If some player has not submitted a move by the deadline, the deadline is extended by 24 hours. If this occurs, it will be publicly announced by the arbiter and all players can continue discussion and potentially change their moves for that round.
2. The deadline in each round may only be extended once. Failing to submit a move after the extended deadline will be interpreted as submitting a pass.
3. During each round, players can discuss, negotiate, and plan their moves, intentions, alignments, etc. See the “Communication” section below.
4. Each player should privately submit their move to the arbiter (via private message) before the deadline runs out.
5. Players can change their submitted move up until the deadline at the end of the round. This includes “taking back” a submission to intentionally cause an extension.
6. After the deadline runs out, the arbiter will work out and reveal what happened on the board from the moves submitted by the players, and then the next round will begin. See sections below on move submission and capturing mechanics.

Communication

1. During each round, players can discuss publicly in the game thread and/or privately via private messages with other players.
2. Private messages are allowed between arbitrary groups of players, but players may never invite a new player to a private thread (instead they should start a new thread which includes that player).
3. Each player will also have a private thread with the game arbiter for submitting moves and asking rules questions that they do not wish to publicly ask in the game thread. These threads are created by the arbiter at the start of the game.
4. All game related discussion should be confined to these official channels, in order clearly distinguish the boundaries between the game and other interaction in these forums.
5. There shall be no discussion about the game, through any channel, between players and non-players during the game.
6. Players can make promises and offer alliances, but nothing spoken during these discussions is binding on what moves they submit.
7. Please keep communication as civil as possible (the general forum rules still apply).

Submitting Moves and Resolving Collisions

1. When submitting a move, each player may either submit a pass, or submit a board play.
2. Submitting a board play involves specifying the coordinates where one wishes to place a stone and a list of contingency placements, should the first choice fails due to a collision.
3. Players may submit up to 3 different choices, clearly indicating first, second and third choice.
4. The arbiter will first attempt to place a stone for each player at their first choice.
5. If two or more players pick the same location with their first choice, none of them get to play at that location, and the arbiter will attempt to place a stone for the colliding players’ second choices.
6. If those second choices collide with each other or stones previously played as other player’s first choices, those second choices are not played, and the process similarly moves onto their third choices.
7. If all of a player’s choices collide with those of others, they do not get to place a stone that round.
8. Player’s second and third choices will not be revealed if any earlier choice successfully placed a stone. However, any collisions that occur will be revealed.

Capturing Mechanics

1. As a prerequisite, the board plays, collisions, and contingencies are resolved according to the section above, which results in a set of newly placed stones.
2. The newly placed stones and any chains (of the same color) that they connect to are called “new chains”. The other chains are called “old chains”.
3. First, any old chains without liberties are removed.
4. Then, any new chains without liberties are removed.
5. Note that this allows suicide and for some cases of simultaneous capture.
6. After resolving captures, the arbiter will reveal the resulting board state, along with the information of where and by whom new stones were placed (to clarify cases where newly placed stones were immediately captured), and the where/who/when of any collisions that occurred.

Elimination and Objective

1. A player is eliminated if they have fewer than x/2 - 3 stones on the board after x rounds (when they have had x opportunities to place a stone on the board).
2. Eliminated players are no longer participating in the game, and are not allowed to take part in the public or private discussion threads between players while the game is going on.
3. The objective for each player is to stay in the game as long as possible.
4. At any time a player may propose an order of elimination for the players who are still in the game. If all remaining players agree, the game is ended directly with the proposed result.

[antonTobi]

I added this rule in the “Communication”-section:

@le_4TC

2. Private messages are allowed between arbitrary groups of players, but players may never invite a new player to a private thread (instead they should start a new thread which includes that player).

Do people agree that this seems reasonable? Otherwise inviting a player to a private thread is a way to prove that some things have been said (of course, there could also be more things said in another thread which you aren’t showing, but still this could probably be used/abused in some way).

[Vsotvep]

Yes, I would’ve included it in my rules as well.

Thanks for writing down the rules, by the way, the last few days have been a bit busy for me…

[antonTobi]

It was mostly a copy and paste, most of the work is by @yebellz

[martin3141]

@le_4TC

This would make a 3-way draw equivalent to 2nd place, which I think is wrong.

@le_4TC please elaborate why you think this is wrong. Even with your proposed prize pool, a three-way draw would equal a second place, i.e. 600$ = (700 + 600 + 500) / 3

[antonTobi]

I just meant that in my opinion, a three-way draw shouldn’t be equivalent to 2nd place, there is of course nothing objectively wrong with it

As for the prize pool, I just messed up…

[antonTobi]

I’m fine with either 2nd place being preferable to a 3-way draw or the other way around, but I think there probably should be a specified preference. So my prize pool example was bad.