You may be correct in this interpretation, but regardless the context was the hypothetical situation where a student did ask that, so it’s not material to object that that is an unlikely question: we are not asking whether or not we should force this information into every introduction to the game, we are asking whether or not we should be willing to give it if explicitly asked
2 Likes
I am curious of what for each of us has kept our attention when the game was presented (if you remember)
Me: time and space.
Ok. Here’s the crux of the issue. This started as a discussion about walk-ups at an Asian festival. This was fashioned into “students.” The pull to think of anyone learning to play as a “student” or even “prospective student” is flawed and exactly the problem. The “sensei-led” problem I described. These are not your students. Everyone that can potentially learn does not need to be a student at all. And we don’t have to treat the two camps the same (and shouldn’t). Once they’re your student, playing, and asking questions, yeah, go crazy.
1 Like
Regardless of whether you view them as a student, a prospective student, or just an unaffiliated person with no prior ties to go, it doesn’t change that answering a direct question with a short but relevant answer hardly longer than just dismissing the question, seems eminently reasonable
1 Like
The point is to not get bogged down in details, so I won’t get bogged down in details. I’m speaking to the broader point of “we overshare niche knowledge.” It’s just true m it’s just more important than how you would prefer to answer this one exact question. Feel free to do it your way but don’t lose the plot.
It takes a few seconds to explain a basic rule in face to face and start to play. The remaining aspects like the counting just come along without complexity. And because you teach you can avoid to drive the game in the more complicated sides.
When presenting the game to an audience, let say for a group of students for ex., I used a short video to give interest (history and myth, CJK, AI etc…) and then let them play on small boards asap.
Now online all become more difficult because the interaction is different, it’s less obvious, more costly to drive an explanation.
I dunno how far we can go out of this face to face introduction and let people discover in a more extended way. But maybe we should observe how those new tools we hold now could provide some new presentation. For exemple accelerated walls of games like some esthetical kaleidoscope? Now we can just show what is the goal with easyness in a few seconds just enlightening the intuitive part.
I find your research and objectives interesting although I doubt if there is really anything new in it. I’m not so convinced that population go as you call it will generate more players, in the same way as starting on a 9x9. It’s a way to make it more simple to approach, but in the same time it makes less attractive. Well, my opinion.
3 Likes
Oh, I fully think that even with this ruleset players should start and spend considerable time on 7x7 and 9x9.
Thanks for your interest in the project. The power just being able to have this and play is just huge. A fresh beginner being able to teach another fresh beginner without describing any concepts as a necessity. Sure, two players might close off all their borders, decide life and death properly, and count correctly. But I have a folder of about a hundred screenshots of “is this game over,” “who won,” “why isn’t this territory,” a tiny fraction of the endless stream I see, some of players who have been at it for a while, that just says this is otherwise and this is so unique to Go and the common approach. It works for those who it works for. I think people just don’t even think about those it doesn’t, or assume “well they’d never play anyway.” And maybe they won’t play much, but to just casually play every now and then on their own accord with an equally casual player is quiet but massive.
2 Likes