I can see the argument for making the discussion honest, like in a teaching game, but given the simultaneous moves (and the general chaos I’m expecting in this game), it seems more fun to be able to hint at things, use misdirection, rely on knowledge of your opponents’ skill levels, post riddles, etc.
And if that’s not allowed, it seems like even posting, say, “I will play at A or B” should not be allowed, since you can be sure that different players will evaluate those moves differently, and you might gain some advantage from their different guesses about which one you will choose.
What I meant earlier is that we shouldn’t go so far as to come up with codes and ciphers to simulate private channels.
I think that speaking ambiguously, misdirection, and even some riddles are okay.
Of course, I also think it’s a bit subjective to draw a firm line between the two, but I trust all of the participants to exercise reasonable judgment on the matter.
I 'm not sure I understand. Is this backup meant as a move in advance? If players wish to submit moves for future rounds, I think that’s fine. Just clearly state which move you want to play for which round, i.e. “I’ll play A1 in Round 100”. And of course you can change it later, as long as that particular round did not finish yet.
It would apply to any future move, just as a fallback. Part of the point is that you don’t even have to worry about it unless we forget to submit something else.
I’m putting my reply here, since I feel like it is more of a discussion about hypothetical future rules, rather than the ongoing game.
I suppose that such a hypothetical rule could result in one-color stones. If that single color was not White nor Black, then it is effectively neutral for scoring purposes?
That depends on the scoring rule, but if this colour does not contribute to points for anybody, then yes.
With this rule I wonder if, in a team game like this, players could ignore the secondary colours and play as if it was two-colour go. Removing the shade of a chain of secondary colour may not have a big effect on the main colours.
My “intuition” is that when a stone whose shades include black and white is captured, only the shade that’s part of a chain without liberties should be captured. It feels “simpler” in outcome, resulting in a less different board position than if the stone disappeared entirely… right? And the other shade “did nothing wrong” that deserves capture, anyway…
EDIT: I think I get what you’re saying, though. Let’s say white captures a group of stones that includes a black+white+yellow stone. If that stone remains on the board as a white+yellow stone, there would be no incentive for that player to ever cooperate with the black+yellow player, right? So the stone is removed as a punishment to the white+yellow player for not helping their black+yellow frenemy.
I’m curious how this variation, much closer to normal go, would play out:
Only two players and colors (black and white)
Simultaneous move submission, collision stones become black + white (you may not collide with pre-existing stones)
When a chain gets captured, only that color gets removed (as discussed in above posts - I think the current capture rule is essential for multiplayer, but for 2-player this alternative one seems like a better fit)
I propose that the game ends and goes to scoring when the same board position occurs for the third time. I feel like with just two players there’s a higher risk of “accidental” repetition, and requiring two turns of both players passing before ending the game could also help prevent some unforeseen weirdness in the end
On the other hand, having that stone removed for white+yellow may actually be beneficial in freeing up a liberty…? If the black chain got captured, it probably means white has great shape even without that stone…?
