Kibitz for Diplomatic Go: The First Game

[yebellz]

Private kibitz log from Vsotvep

---

Move 14

I got approached by Martin to help kill le_4TC. It was not just a small plan, it was massively elaborate, involving cooperation from both Haze and 李建澔 as well. There is just one small problem: I find both Haze and Martin more dangerous to my current position than I find le_4TC, and moreover, I have a pretty strong alliance with le_4TC, I believe.

If le_4TC gets eliminated, I will need both Haze and 李建澔 to help me defeat Martin, which is going to prove difficult.

Here is a short recap of my conversation with Martin, le_4TC and my own thoughts.

Martin offered to capture le_4TC, which would be good since he is currently the strongest player, according to him. I disagree, and find Martin currently in the best position, and definitely more threatening to me.

I replied to Martin that my current objective is getting H8 played before Haze does. If their plan would incorporate that, I was fine with collaborating (which is a partial lie, I was also fine with considering allying up completely with le_4TC)

The plan, which apparently already got Haze on board, was the following:

@martin3141

I understand that H8 is an important point, but I believe that time is of the essence if we want to have a chance to capture le_4TC’s group. To be clear, I have sent the following message to player Yellow:

@martin3141

Hello, I believe we can make it difficult for le_4TC to capture your group and simultaneously pressure him from the outside.

I am going to play 1. E1 and I am hoping that you will do the same. This would ensure that there is a collision at E1 (no matter if le_4TC plays there or not) and your liberties are not shortened.

If you trust me, please play at J5 with your second move. I will try to convince Haze_with_a_Z to play 1. J2. This combination woul make it very difficult for orange to capture your group.

I believe that we can capture le_4TC’s group if we work together.

Please answer if you agree to this plan.

Haze has agreed to help, but if we want to succeed, we must be willing to work together for several moves. If you or Haze play at H8, then our “alliance” might crumble.

My suggestion is that you start filling le_4TC’s outside liberties, for example with E5. I will play 1. E1 (colliding with Yellow) and 2. B1 (because I don’t see a better way to start filling in le_4TC’s liberties on the left).

Ideally, we would get a board state similar to the following:

This would make it very difficult for Orange to play anything except E1, which we could protect with collisions.

You are right that I’m dangerous, but you can still form an alliance against me after le_4TC is captured.

Are you in?

By the way player Yellow has also agreed. I believe that if we work together, we can achieve great things!

If you don’t believe me, you are free to ask Haze and 李建澔2 about it.

I replied that I didn’t see capturing le_4TC as the most urgent thing, and that my urgency was with D1 not becoming an eye (the truth). I was also afraid of A1 becoming a white eye at some point in the future, which would be bad, of course. I also clarified that I wasn’t convinced by the plan yet , but didn’t put collaboration beyond possible.

I then made the decision that I would prefer to ally with le_4TC, if only because he is a more reliable ally (I’m not sure Martin could be trusted, yet), and we have been exchanging information about our moves and collaborated (with Haze) to capture the C2 stones and place the A6 stone.

Hence I told le_4TC that things are moving, and that there exists a plan to prevent E1 from being played. I also expressed my concern of le_4TC getting D1 as an eye, which they acknowledged:

le_4TC responded with the suggestion that we would work together to capture 李建澔 in the next move, using the information I have. They also offered that I would play E1, so that that would not become an extra eye of theirs.

So here’s the real plan:

1st move

I’m offering Haze to both play at H8 on the first move. This will be a collision, and result in no move being played. The best thing, is that if either of us breaks this promise, the other will get H8, so it is in both of our benefit to make the collision work.

Meanwhile, Martin and 李建澔 collide on E1, making sure le_4TC won’t play their first move there. le_4TC plays J1, which will by exhaustion necessarily succeed:

If for some reason Martin is lying about their first move collision, yellow will be captured:

2nd move

The second move according to what I told Haze and Martin, is that Haze and I collide at E1, meaning that also a second move attempt by le_4TC to get E1 in will fail. The plan is that 李建澔 plays J5, and that I Martin plays D5:

However, in actuality, I will not play E1 as my second choice, I will instead play J5, most likely blocking the yellow stone capturing me:

This will result in all of 李建澔’s stones being captured and Haze having a throw-in, limiting eyespace for le_4TC (which they are fine with, amazingly enough).

3rd move

My third move will be C9, to further limit white’s eye potential, giving the following result:

It is possible that 李建澔 plays their third move as a collision somewhere with an earlier stone, or it is possible that they will play something like E5 or D6 and get immediately captured, or J2, and capture Haze’s stone at J3. There are few moves that 李建澔 could make that are particularly harmful.

[yebellz]

Round 15 has begun

Editable board

See game thread for details about all of the collisions and captures

[yebellz]

Wow! What incredible developments!

I’m glad to see (via Vsotvep’s kibitz log) that the replacement player, martin3141 has really gotten into the swing of things. Impressive and ambitious planning from them, but unfortunate that it did not work out in the end.

le_4TC has stabilized a very strong, leading position, and seem to have gained a supportive ally in Vsotvep, who should be careful not to let le_4TC to get too far ahead, or it may just be an easy win for le_4TC.

李建澔2 has just narrowly avoided elimination and has little prospects, but is technically still alive and can continue to play stones to harass and punish those opponents they feel have hurt them the most.

Haze_with_a_Z has a weak position, with not much eye potential, but with their stones all over the place, it would be hard to eliminate them quickly, and any hostility toward them could draw their wrath.

Unless some incredibly massive shakeup happens, with many stones being captured to open up space for them to live, it seems that Haze_with_a_Z and 李建澔2 are in no position to go for a win. However, they can still be quite dangerous players, with the ability to focus all of their stones onto their target, since they really don’t have to worry about defense, given that they have little to lose.

[KAOSkonfused]

It’s getting really interesting. Thanks to @Vsotvep (when he’ll read this later) for sharing his thoughts and also @martin3141 's plans with us.

Yes, le_4TC will now be hard to stop, but otherwise, if Vsotvep had followed Martin’s plan, martin3141 would be by far the strongest player, I think, and maybe unstoppable.

So far, I feel the 9x9 board is ideal for Diplomatic Go, because the very limited space forces much more cooperation between the players. Despite having weak positions, Haze_with_a_Z and 李建澔2 are still very important allies, and I assume that would not as much be the case on a bigger board.

[shinuito]

@yebellz

Vsotvep, who should be careful not to let le_4TC to get too far ahead, or it may just be an easy win for le_4TC.

I can sympathise with martin3141, given the way the board is, it either looks even:

martin3141 can maybe get 2-3 eyes, say A6 big eye, and possibly divide up B9 A8 into two eyes, but likely 2 overall depending on developments.
le_4TC could probably make 3-4 eyes if given time as well, imagining the E1 stone, maybe at E3, possibly g2, and maybe with a capture at J3.
Vsotvep Probably can find a trick way to play H8, and get an eye at J9, another at G9 possibly, one with E7 in theory, so potentially 3-4 eyes.

So maybe with the alliance of le_4TC and Vsotvep, imagining they work to capture martin3141, it’s likely Vsotvep gets points if Haze_with_a_Z gets captured. Maybe Vsotvep can come out ahead.

I think though if instead le_4TC was captured as in the other plan then both Haze_with_a_Z and 李建澔2 are in weak positions. Maybe Vsotvep didn’t see a way to gain from it, like if martin3141 could capture the bottom left as per their plan and 李建澔2 eventually fell, maybe there isn’t much to gain, and there’s still possibly a fight with Haze_with_a_Z.

I guess I can kind of understand the logic, although I kind of liked the idea of le_4TC getting unexpectedly captured.

[shinuito]

Trying to imagine some hot spots on the board for the next round. I won’t try predict how it’ll play out, I wouldn’t have guessed the events of the last round at all, only the Kibitz logs illuminating what was going on behind the scenes

However as an interesting thought. What if some team work could achieve this capture? I imagine martin3141 will either want to strengthen themself or weaken le_4TC though.

[KAOSkonfused]

I don’t know how you are feeling about this, but for me it gets increasingly hard not to write or like posts in the game thread.

[yebellz]

A very interesting dynamic is forming in the public discussion between martin3141Vsotvep and le_4TC, starting with this:

Diplomatic Go The First Game

I have some experience in diplomatic multiplayer games, sort of similar to this one. Once there are people who feel like they have no chance of winning anymore (especially if they cannot resign), they often act as “Kingmakers”, helping change the outcome of the game in favor of one person or the other. Because that way, at least you impact the outcome of the game. I believe that Haze and 李建澔2 probably feel that way, and I am starting to feel that way as well.

They are figuring out what direction this game should go, and no doubt these words will greatly shape its outcome.

@KAOSkonfused

it gets increasingly hard not to write or like posts in the game thread.

So write your thoughts here!

And you can highlight/link content from the game thread here to show that you like what’s being said.

[KAOSkonfused]

Sure - I just wanted to copy out things to comment on.

@martin3141

Great, now le_4TC is comfortably in the lead. I don’t see a way to change that anymore.

I see that as an attempt to get other players focused on le_4TC.

@李建澔2

Some has to capture my stone.I will have to make a move on eye spaces.

Vagabond 李建澔2 does not seem to understand how important he is as an ally.

@martin3141

I have some experience in diplomatic multiplayer games, sort of similar to this one. Once there are people who feel like they have no chance of winning anymore (especially if they cannot resign), they often act as “Kingmakers”, helping change the outcome of the game in favor of one person or the other. Because that way, at least you impact the outcome of the game.

I believe that Haze and 李建澔2 probably feel that way, and I am starting to feel that way as well.

I hope, now Vagabond gets it.
martin3141’s last sentence is imho pure tactic, not what he really thinks. He still has a very strong position.

@Vsotvep

Who knows, perhaps 5 players on a 9x9 board will turn out to always be a draw?

Good initiation of negotiations between the three strongest players.
I’m curious how this will end, and I’m sure that from now on the diplomatic relations alone will decide the game.

[yebellz]

Round 16 has begun

Editable board

[yebellz]

I think le_4TC brought up some interesting issues in the below quoted posts

@le_4TC

One possible idea is to have each players score be how many points they are behind the first place player(s). So let’s say one player has 30 points, one player has 27 points, one player has 24 points, and the remaining two have no alive stones. You could say that the first player has 0 points, second player has -3 points, third player has -6 points, and remaining two have -30. If your incentive is to maximize your own score here, it is in your interest to keep attacking the leading player, even if you can’t keep any of your own stones alive. You could use this rule together with or instead of the current elimination mechanic.

This is proposing a very different sort of objective, relative scoring (along with suggesting no eliminations) as opposed to the winner takes all type of objective that I’ve set out for this game. This is analogous to playing to maximize one’s score rather than to maximize one’s chance of winning in standard Go. There are far more distinct outcomes in such a game, since each possible integer for relative score is a distinct outcome. Further, by playing for relative score, a player might be happy to settle for a “strong second”, where they actually help another player secure the win, since they might judge that to be the best approach for securing the highest score for themselves. This introduces new considerations involving risk tolerance, since a player in a “strong second” position might not want to go for the win, since they fear that it could easily backfire and worsen their relative scoring position. Of course, in a winners take all perspective, settling for a strong second is only taking a loss with certainty, and hence players are incentivized to knock off the leader.

Of course, as a technical aside, it is unnecessary to shift the scores into negative numbers (setting the leader to 0). Counting the area score as normal, with eliminated players having 0 points, gives the same relative scoring effect.

In the game of Diplomacy, there is also some debate about what the objective of the game should be. In that community, the more serious players generally prefer the winner takes all mentality and disdain the “strong second” philosophy. On some websites, like webdiplomacy.net, there even used to be two types of game scoring available, “winner takes all” vs “points per supply center (PPSC)” (analogous to relative scoring). The PPSC system was eventually discontinued due to the unpopularity of the “strong second” effect.

I didn’t want to publicly respond to this rules suggestion, even in the other general variant thread, since perhaps @le_4TC is using such a suggestion to influence the strategic approach taken by other players. From a leading position, you would ideally want the other players happily to settle for a “strong second” and not challenge you, rather than taking a firm winner takes all mentality where they try to knock you off the hill.

@le_4TC

If they keep playing but their behaviour is ill-defined (i. e. they don’t have any real goal, but have to decide who to help just based on what they’re feeling), that also affects the game in a weird way. You can’t hope to do any “reading” if you don’t even know what game your opponent is playing.

This uncertainty about other player’s preferences and intentions (especially when they are in a weak position) is a very important aspect of Diplomacy. This type of uncertainty is an example of “incomplete information”, where the players don’t fully understand the others’ preferences, which may include all sorts of considerations for how all of the players finish the game.

As another aside, Diplomacy is also, of course, a game of “imperfect information”, since moves are kept secret until revealed and executed simultaneously. This aside is just me being pedantic in illustrating the difference between “imperfect” vs “incomplete” information.

Ultimately, the personal outcome of a game is not just the “win”, “draw”, or “loss” individually handed out to each player, but rather the collective joint results of all players. For example, one might be the type to hold a grudge, and hence have a preference for seeing one’s greatest rivals/betrayers also lose, and make moves toward that effect, even if one is not able to prevent one’s own loss. Some might even hold onto grudges so tightly that when they feel that there is only a slim chance of winning (and especially when this was caused by a painful betrayal), they will go so far as to further worsen their chance of winning while just focusing on maximally punishing those that hurt them. Such retaliation could be viewed as following through on a “non-credible threat”, but it certainly does happen quite often in regular Diplomacy, and is perhaps rational from the perspective of building a reputation as someone not worth betraying (in the context of repeated games).

[yebellz]

@Haze_with_a_Z

No sure it’ll do much if I’m in or not at this point though

If Haze_with_a_Z genuinely feels that way, it would be quite unfortunate. Even though its extremely difficult for them to win from this position, they can still have a huge impact on the outcome of the game, and maybe even work themselves into a draw of some sorts. I hope they don’t just give up on the game, since they could at least settle some scores and play kingmaker to a significant degree.

Actually, if Haze_with_a_Z manages to work with the others to attack either Vsotvep or le_4TC, there’s maybe still a chance that they can get back into the running for this game.

[yebellz]

Private kibitz log from Vsotvep

---

Round 17

My plan for this round is to capture the big group by Haze, to give le_4TC and me more liberties and to make sure I won’t lose J4 & J5. Afterwards, le_4TC can take J3, and we can start concentrating on removing white, who will be short on liberties. So the plan is that le_4TC takes G5, and I take J6, this round.

I’m expecting Haze to play E8, and it’s not unlikely that martin3141 will play D6. I wish to block that at all cost, so my first move is going to be E8: if Haze plays there, I’ll live another day, and if Haze does not play there, but for some reason decides to play J6, they’ll get themselves captured. I’ll play J6 as a second move.

As a third move, I’ll have to assume two collisions with Haze, and it’s likely that martin3141 plays somewhere like D6 or E5, removing liberties. It’s unlikely that anybody will play at A7, so that will be my third move.

[yebellz]

Whoops, I think I forgot to ever note the start of Round 17 here:

Board State at Beginning of Round 17

Editable board

[yebellz]

Round 18 has begun

Editable board

[shinuito]

I’ll have to check the other thread for the collisions and things but it looks very interesting. I’m guessing Vsotvep (with the Insight from the kibitz logs) probably things that long term ending up with a 1v1 game vs le_4tc will be good/playable and possibly can go to counting. If it gets to 1v1 is that what SAS go was more or less? Simultaneous placement of moves?

Edit: the co-operation between haze and Martin is great, blocking captures and haze managing to capture three of vsotveps stones. Not sure why they played inside rather than g5, maybe because it’s a shared liberty with a teammate?

I think the game has definitely gotten more exciting in the last two or so rounds. Hopefully someone convinces 李建澔2 to help with collisions and captures and things. Maybe they are working with Martin an haze, they have a kind of shared (False) eye with haze on the bottom. It’ll be interesting to see how they get captured.

[yebellz]

Round 19 has begun

Editable board

Vsotvep and martin3141 collided with each other on all three choices, and hence neither of them got to place a stone.

[yebellz]

@shinuito

Hopefully someone convinces 李建澔2 to help with collisions and captures and things. Maybe they are working with Martin an haze, they have a kind of shared (False) eye with haze on the bottom

Whoops, looks like they filled that shared eye and put themselves into 1-atari.

I’m not sure what exactly they are trying accomplish. I would have hoped to see the meddle in the affairs of other players. They could indeed be very hard to eliminate, if they prove useful elsewhere.

Actually, maybe 李建澔2 could perhaps (maybe inadvertently) do a favor for le_4TC by capturing E1, which would improve le_4TC’s potential eye shape.

[yebellz]

Private kibitz log from Vsotvep

---

Round 18

Well, yeah, it was maybe a bit too ambitious…

Time to stay alive, then.

1. F9
2. E8
3. A7

---

Round 19

Same plan, really. The situation hasn’t changed much after all

Only difference is that Haze has lost a liberty, so the capture of those stones will probably happen sooner than expected.

1. F9
2. E8
3. J5

---

I need some clarification on the rules: a win is the goal of the game, but a draw is preferable to a loss. How much preferable?

Martin is offering a way to get the game in a 3-way draw, but if I would accept this depends on what the value of a draw is (including the dependence of the value of draw / loss dependent on the number of players included in the draw):

@martin3141

If I promise not to play E8 next round (with none of my moves), will you cooperate with me in trying to get a draw? (after the next round that is, because I understand that you probably don’t trust me right now)

The basic idea to get a draw is to threaten the player with the highest score (that would be le_4TC) with cooperation by the other players. One clear-cut example that I could come up with, is this:

Orange has 29 Points and Blue has 27 Points in the top-right. However Orange cannot remove the three blue stones from the board. So if white refuses to take them off or mark them as dead during the agreement phase, then blue wins with 30 points. White could also capture them, handing the win to Orange.

So White would be the kingmaker here and could try to make the other players vote for a draw. If either of the other players doesn’t vote for draw, then white would allow the other one to win.

@Vsotvep

I really like this idea. But I don’t think this is something that would work automatically with the current rules. Every player has three options to submit at that point: “draw”, “resign” or “pass”. Clearly neither I nor le_4TC would resign at this point, since a draw would be better than a loss. However, to get a draw, all three of the players need to agree on the draw.

I can at this point choose to pass instead, until eventually the game is scored, since that would declare me the winner. You could threaten me with capturing my stones, but that would just result in le_4TC becoming the winner, making you a true kingmaker. Both options would have you losing, thus I should assume that you have no preference for one or the other.

Now here’s the difficult bit. A win is said to be the main goal. If a win cannot be reached, a draw is preferable to a loss. But, it is not stated how much more preferable a win is to a draw, to a loss.

If a win is more than twice the worth of a draw, and a loss is worth nothing, I’d get the best utility out of accepting a draw: 50 / 50 chance of winning / losing gives a utility of half what winning is worth, which is more than the draw (le_4TC can’t keep passing, because eventually that would declare me winner).

On the other hand, if a win is worth less than twice the worth of a draw, the situation reverses.

If a win is worth exactly twice the worth of a draw, neither option would be preferable.

It becomes even more tricky if we let the worth of a draw be dependent on the number of participants in the draw…

---

Also, for the kibitzers, I’m going for Martin’s draw proposal from above

[yebellz]

In response to Vsotvep’s question, I wrote this via PM to them:

---

@Vsotvep

I need some clarification on the rules: a win is the goal of the game, but a draw is preferable to a loss. How much preferable?

It is up to the players to decide upon the relative preferences of each outcome, and such preferences would also have to incorporate the individual’s risk tolerance/aversion.

It is also possible for players to have more fine grained preferences, such as to prefer one type of draw (based on number of players involved and who specifically is involved) over another type of draw, even if they are involved in both types of draws. Further, one might have a preference between losing and having another particular player lose as well versus losing and having another particular player win.

From the expected utility perspective, it is impossible for the game designer to dictate what player’s utility functions should be. A player’s individual preferences determines their utility function, not the other way around. I only ask that players generally try to remain consistent with win > draw > loss, but I also cannot prevent or judge against players that seek to influence the direction of the game however they want.