Fun: How would you characterize go?

This is not a serious question but for fun and entertainment :slight_smile:

How would you characterize Go?

My take:

A Go game is a long sequence of errors.
A good player is one that makes less sever errors.

Lets hear some funny or unusual definitions of Go :slight_smile:


Go made use of the less useful Smarties. But of the most useful smarts.


When you win, you never win because you did something particularly smart - you just win because your opponent made more mistakes than you.


I still like my analogy that in a game of Go, the groups are like fighty male elephant seals jostling against each other for space.

It’s often been said of certain strong players that their style is like flowing water: whatever obstacles are put up, they simply continue around them without fuss.


I think athletics are a good analogy. Why does Adam Peaty dominate breaststroke? Not because he’s larger or more muscular than his opponents: his technique is in some way superior. Go is sort of a game of three parts: judgement, technique, and power – at SDK level, I feel technique to probably be the most important. Like in a swimming race, advantage is often achieved by travelling quickly and efficiently by using effective technique.

Or take Among Us. You have to pick your battles. Suppose you get greedy, or impatient, or careless, or cocksure, and you kill someone in front of witnesses because you didn’t make sure that the victim was isolated – you’re going to get found out. You need to assess the situation in the local area before taking a decisive judgement: just like how in Go, you should check whether a fight in a certain part of the board will be good or bad for you, and how to best prep the position with that aggressive action in mind.


At the risk of treating a “fun” thread a bit too seriously, the above is true for nearly any endeavor where there are competent competitors (i.e. ignoring beginners luck) facing each other. At elite levels, the “errors” get so small that many times they aren’t apparent until the competition is over.


A Go game is only a long sequence of errors if you view a deviation from the ideal move to be an error.

If you compare our moves to the quality of a random move, then a Go game is a long sequence of brilliant moves in which we slowly create order from the chaos of an empty board, in which the person who does a better job of channeling that order towards their competitive goals is declared the victor.


It’s a rage against your jealousy and greediness.


When I describe go to a newbie I like to use this analogy:

Each stone is spreading a field around it. Something like electricity, magnetism or some. Far stones can interact from a distance because of their field. White and black fields are opposite and interfere each other.

You have to manage your field, keeping it strong and efficient from a distance, unless you really need to connect some stones.

I imagine the fuseki like arranging antennas to spread my signal all around. :satellite::satellite::satellite:


You’d enjoy the Color Go Server so for the visualisations, could be useful to support the analogy :slight_smile:


For introducing the goal, I used a lot an analogy with farmers running to share a piece of land with wood sticks to make fences.