There are other reasons to not talk in rengo as the reasons you don’t talk in go, even if these last ones can apply in a rengo too. behind the etiquette of the game you may consider talking in a game of go afterall. This won’t change deeply the nature of the game. You could argue with words and then play the move. Doing it between partners would change a lot the nature of the game in rengo, putting away that dimension where you guess and try to follow the intention of your partner. Changing it into a simple team debate.
I feel like this is a bit silly though for a casual implementation. If that’s part of the rules one would want for some kind of ranking then sure, but it’s on the level of not telling someone they’re in check in chess, and if they don’t resolve it they lose. You could do that, but why
Without a doubt, one of the advantages of online rengo will be that the server knows who’s turn it is, so no-one can make a mistake of this sort.
Absolutely, and even more can prevent it easely.
On the minimalist formated communication :
That’s makes even more sense with a system protecting against playing twice as players will have to care less on who’s turn it is.
Not in the events I’ve played in, if it’s accidental. Usually a 3 point penalty. But playing out of turn on purpose e.g by stronger player on hard move is definitely not cricket and could get you reported to the referee and disqualified.
Better wait your weak partner to try a kikashi (forcing move)
Although the most shameful game i ever played was a rengo in which i kikashi A. Moussa, french champion and one of best European players at that time, who became furious, didn’t answer as i wanted and won the game in a crushing way.
Rengo games should be unranked IMHO. Otherwise they would disturb the validity of the ranking system for individuals.
A system that allowed the wrong person to move would be as pitiful as a system that allowed a player to make two consecutive moves in a two-player game.
I can’t imagine why anyone would want to play rengo with an unknown partner and unknown opponents. What’s the point? All the quasi-rengo in OGS that I have seen (where teammates share a common account) came about because some regulars in the chat thought it would be fun and decided to play together. The players in those games that I watched have always respected the honor system by not discussing moves, although they did have to ask frequently whose turn it was.
In contrast, OGS has also had team games with four or five players on a team, who consulted and agreed upon each move in a correspondence game using an account controlled by the team captain. I participated in a round robin involving three teams like this last year.
I can imagine that. Teaching purpose for ex. Or tournament. Or just fun to play a rengo.
I think there is much more teaching/learning value in a consultative team game such as I described, since the discussions are quite extensive. Also, I personally don’t see any fun in not knowing who the players are.
I dunno if there is more.
The rengo has its own vertue by the pressure to play together but without communication. It can become very intense for the weaker player who doesn’t want to disappoint the stronger. It will give instant answers on his choice sometimes too (like Ah well that’s not working, or that was surely bigger i see that now…).
Even if it is not your wish, you are less commited in a team game. Afterall you can always rely on the others if you feel so.
So you may communicate more rational infos and different points of views in a team game but teaching is not only about this, It’s about how you will integrate it and how It’s answering precisely to your own investigations. So i can’t really say which way has a better value.
If you have to know who you play with or against to have fun, i don’t think so too although it’s something that could surely add pleasure. When i play go many times i know nothing on my opponent and then by the experience of that game, i acquire a bit of knowledge on him. In rengo It’s the same with 3 players and me. The pairing, especially the choice of your partner can be influenced by the knowledge you have of others (and i agree that’s often the fact) but that doesn’t make it a prerequisite at all.
Said shortly you don’t have to be friends to start a rengo and have fun. There are chances you become friends by starting a rengo.
I think if rengo ever was ranked it would be an isolated rank not combined with overall.
I was thinking the same but now what would be interesting, ranking by players or by pairs? Or both?
Would we have sufficient distortion when using the individual rankings to find pairs of same levels to validate their implementation?
There could be an interest in competitive rengo which could require a ranking. But then this could work against the teaching aspect.
There are lots of sports that extract player ratings out of team performances, the same should be possible and largely ideal outside of tournaments with fixed teams for rengo
I think it would be interesting to see where strong at go and strong at rengo don’t necessarily correlate.
Either strong players that don’t pair well, or weaker players that “communicate” well on the board and bring the best out of their team.
In my experience in pair go, a good synergy of playing styles can make up for part of a strength gap in the pair. I have played in some national pair go championships with a 4k partner who was (over)aggressive, like I was at that time, and we regularly managed to beat some pairs that were a couple of stones stronger than us on paper.
One time we even made it to the final playoff to go to China for the world pair go championship.
We narrowly lost that play-off, although we were not too sad about it, because we were both too busy to actually go to China.
Indeed, a 3d 1k couple I know beat a pair of Chinese 5ds (who had never played together) in an even game at EGC pair go.
i do trashtalking to my opponents in rengo, yes ^^
For me rengo is something you do with 3 friends when you’re all bit drunk, friendly trashtalk and jokes are part of the experience xD
The best would be to make an option: chat disabled by default, but the box can be un-checked when the game is created.
What about allowing all chat, but sending a message to all players that communicating with one’s teammates about the game is disallowed? I think most people here can follow the spirit of the rule.
Possible but you have to explain more (politness/agreement to pass or resign/time reminder are allowed.)