Nerf corners - the first line doesn’t count for scoring, otherwise the rules of the game are the same.
1 Like
You could make a small living group like this.
2 Likes
with essentially three corner points (two-liberty intersections) now placed closer to the hoshi, it seems like the strategic action of the corner may have just been shifted more towards the center
Sounds like the corners have been nerfed effectively, and the center has been consequently buffed. Kudos to me!
55 looking good now
Not sure. Still a corner with 2 edges.
I think you are missing my point. I’m saying that I think your proposed change would effectively result in the corner regions taking up more of board, leaving less center territory to fight for. Overall, I think this may result in a game that is even more strategically focused on securing the corners than the typical 19x19.
For example, traditionally, stones at 3-4 and 5-3 might be used to enclose a corner. However, with your proposal, perhaps stones at 4-5 and 5-3 might enclose a corner with a similar level of security. Likewise, new joseki and fuseki would be shifted more towards the center. This does not necessarily make the game more center-focused, but could instead just make the corner regions more relatively valuable, as after those are settled, there is less center and sides left over to fight for.
3 Likes
I wonder if sideseki would be more effective or 8 3-3 stones
and how powerful is P15 point?
1 Like
I guess it depends how the corners should be nerfed. Does the original poster dislike how efficient it is to get territory in the corner region, or do they dislike the tactical effect that the 2-liberty intersections have on fights? If it’s the latter, what about removing the corners?
Upside: corners nerfed
Downside: there are now weird diagonal connections
Some shapes would look odd there, e.g. a pyramid four might visually look like a twisted four.
7 Likes
I did not
You have ignored many requests for clarification.
I’m not convinced this is a fair characterization
The many requests for clarification were expressing confusion about the meaning of well-established words, and I think has been adequately clarified by now
But by applying the principle of charity in order to assume you did not intend by the following quote to blame the OP for the ignorance of other people, it can only be concluded that said quote is claiming not that the sentence was unclearly written, it was quite clear, but that it failed to specify in what way corners were OP and therefore ought be nerfed
As can be seen in context, the “I did not” must be referring to the lack of direction on how to nerf corners, but “You have ignored…” must be interpreting it as referring to the use of words some people here were ignorant of
It’s not clear who’s misinterpreting who here, but I don’t think everyone involved here can possibly be accurately representing eachother
Makes every point in the 5x5 corner region have snub square connections. It maintains 361 points, just adds some connections which weren’t there before with the aim of making invading stones slipperier
4 Likes
The concave corners are interesting. Is there a geometry where a polygon can have only concave angles? (the interior angle of every corner is >n where n is the angle of a straight line (I assume this is defined as 180°, but I thought I should futureproof in case someone said that 180° doesn’t make a straight line in all geometries))
What about the inside of an ellipsoid? And could you go even tighter by not making the surface of the ellipsoid connect back on itself, but keep spiralling inwards forever?
Good idea
1 Like
I am sorry if
was perhaps an exaggeration, but OP seems to have taken very little part in the discussion so far.
While I did not want to
I do think it would have been reasonable to expect OP to allow for readers understandably ignorant of that terminology and to clarify his original post, especially for readers new to the thread. But there were other explicit or implicit requests, not directly related to gamer vocabulary, in particular:
(though perhaps some of that can be answered by understanding the nuances of “nerf”) and:
I still feel that it would have been helpful of OP to state what they were hoping for and what (if anything) they felt was wrong with the current situation, and that last quote reinforces that feeling.
Sure, but it got clarified, so I’m not sure it really matters that it wasn’t the OP who did so
Possibly, but even disregarding the possibility that I was right and it was a joke (and clarifying would only have detracted from the joke by explaining it), I am quite happy with how the open-ended nature of the OP has left a lot of room for different interpretations and correspondent solutions
That said, I did like one of your previous posts which expressed this, because it was admittedly vague in this area
1 Like
I guess it depends on what you mean by interior.
1 Like
I’m not sure how to make a formal definition of interior angle, but I think it’s pretty intuitive based on intuitive understandings of the interior and exterior of a polygon
The problem is that a polygon on a space like the torus mentioned above might not carve out a finite area and leave you with an infinite area like in the plane.
2 Likes
I think the obvious solution is to just throw out such degenerate cases, like we do when solutions to a quadratic equation fall outside the range
Also, the polygon here would only outline what would become the goban, so once it was filled out, interior would be yet more obvious