The first fractional go game has concluded. It was a lot of fun, we fixed some rules issues (regarding suicide and superko), and now I am very happy with the rules. Is there interest to play another game? I’m thinking of a slightly different setup with simultaneous moves, and two teams with N players, each with one team colour and one colour shared with a player of the opposing team. Collisions could be handled by a priority list or by placing a stone of the combined colours.
Game Setup
We play on a 19x19 board, where all players place stones of two colours. Each round players submit their move fomulated in an unambiguous way (i.e. “D4”) via private message to the arbiter (martin3141). Rounds last 48 hours, and after the deadline the arbiter places all stones simultaneously and presents the new board position in the public thread. Players will be allowed to discuss the position and their strategy only in the public thread.
Fractional Capture Rule and Collision
Chains of a colour are determined in the same way as in “normal” go, however stones can be part of multiple chains (one for each of the stones colours).
At the end of a round, if two or more players submitted the same move, a stone is placed of all of these players colours combined.
After the arbiter placed all stones, all chains that do not contain a recently placed stone and have no liberties are removed simultaneously. Then all chains that contain a recently placed stone and have no liberties are removed simultaneously. Note that the first step may free up liberties. Also “suicide moves” are allowed.
Teams and Objectives
Players will be grouped into two teams of equal size, each team being associated with a team colour. Each player places stones of their team colour, the second colour being shared by a player on the opposing team.
The game ends when one team resigns with unanimous agreement or when the board position repeats itself (for example due to all players passing). In the latter case we proceed to counting (unless all players agree to keep playing).
Teams receive points for all stones of their team colour, as well as their territories. A maximal connected set of empty intersections is called a territory of a colour if all adjacent stones feature this colour. All intersections in a territory count as one point.
If both teams have the same number of points, the game ends in a tie. Otherwise the team with more points wins.
In the event that a player prematurely drops out and no substitute player can be found, a teammate may take over for this player, however they must submit the move in the public thread for everybody to see, at least 24h before the deadline, and they cannot change the submission afterwards. This is to counteract the information advantage they would otherwise have.
One public thread for discussion and the updated board positions (and no private discussion) sounds good to me. Provided that we play with simultaneous moves, we will need an arbiter to collect moves and present the updated board position. I’m willing to be that role.
It sure can get crazy fun, especially with fractional captures Wanna join?
I’m interested, especially if collision handling works like this. But with the rule, that a stone needs liberties for all colors to not get captured, such stones might be very volatile. Maybe stones should be required to have liberties for at least two of their colors?
I believe that stones of many colours are more difficult to capture than stones of fewer colours. I know it seems like it would be easier to capture due to being part of multiple chains, but think of it this way: Only stones that do not share a colour with you can effectively reduce your liberties.
//Edit: I realised that what I wrote is not true: Stones that share a colour with you can still remove liberties of your other coloured chains. But either way, I’m not sure how stones of many colours will play out. There’s only one way to find out
Shall we try a larger board as well? I’d like to see these kind of variants on a board size where big moves are a thing. So far, we usually play on 9x9, or in case of many players on 13x13, but it always ends up in a game-deciding brawl. It would be nice to just take some territory in peace, and have more strategic considerations about priority and such.
Sounds good to me. Provided that we play with simultaneous moves and move-submission-periods of 24-48 hours, I expect the game to progress much faster than the first game, so it would not take too long on bigger boards.
To clarify: there will be one chat thread for public discussion and me presenting the position after every move, but moves will be submitted via private messages to me, the arbiter. Messages in the public chat thread are in no way binding for move submission.
I am very happy that @Vsotvep , @Jon_Ko and @yebellz are participating, and I’m hoping to find at least 3 more players. Please feel free to ask if the rules are unclear - they may seem complicated, but I’m sure they’re easy to grasp with a couple of examples.
Okay, that sounds doable now that I understand about the private move submission. And if you’re trying to get more players this time, then sure, please sign me up!
Wanna join?
), so I’ll enjoy spectating instead 