But for most of the early/middle game you are only looking at the board to copy the move your opponent made What āboard stateā are we talking about?
If outsourcing your mind and moves is not āexternal helpā, then I daresay that I am the actual composer of JethOrensinās ninth Symphony.
Granted I found a note-sheet by a dude named Beethoven and copied it, but it was ā100% of my decision makingā and based on your reasoning I should get credit for that.
I am currently writing the other eight symphonies. It was also ā100% my decisionā to begin counting from nine
To be clear:
The original idea of using mirror Go as a training tool to play unfamiliar tools and get better at Go seems great.
However mirror Go is annoying and a sort of external help, since you are not really playing the moves you play. If it should be against the ToS that is not for me to say, but I just noted that it could potentialy be deemed as such.
Outsourcing your mind is a debate. There are ideas, choices of moves when copying the moves in some way. Anyway, i think the TOS is not aiming at this when mentioning external help, itās not about how you play on the board according to your opponents own moves but how you inject moves coming from outside the board.
The go board has a few symmetries. Dealing with those is part of mastering the game.
Depending on my mood I might be annoyed when an opponent mirrors me. But Iād be annoyed by myself, because I think itās pathetic not to have a plan against such an obvious strategy as a 4k.
Obvious or notā¦ See what happens when we pincer, counter pincer and counter counter counter pincerā¦ or when we invade and invade the invador, go is so full of mysteries at times.
I do not have a strategy for that, but I think that it is not annoying at all. After all, I am the only one playing if the opponent is mirroring my moves so, if they win, I win
I watched Jonas Welticke review some of his Grand Slam games that he won, some of which he played mirror Go as white.
Some of those games like the one against Stanislaw he used a lot of his thinking time trying to figure out what Stanislaw had prepared in advance.
In theory the good thing about your opponent mirroring is that you can prepare incredibly long variations in advance and they always have to worry about ladders
That can offset the time gain that they may or may not gain.
If I played an AI which is supposed to be much stronger than me and the AI couldnāt find a strategy better than mirroring my moves, I suppose I would be flattered
If I played an AI which is supposed to be weaker than me but that actively implements mirror go, then Iād probably keep playing it until Iām sure that I can beat it consistently. And then of course Iād stop.
Iām pretty sure itās not. If professionnel players really arrived at the conclusion that mirror go was the best strategy for black or for white, then all pros would start playing it, and then shortly afterwards, the rules of the game would be updated to forbid creating a symmetrical position. But weāre certainly not there.
If you actively went to all that trouble to annoy your opponent, theyāll probably be thankful that you blocked them.
Have your considered that maybe theyāre playing go because they enjoy the game, and not because āthey take enjoyment from annoying othersā?
The only thing I āmisreadā from your post was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were open to a good-faith discussion. Obviously youāre not. Have a great day.
I didnāt say itās an inherent deficit because it is a strong strategy, in fact I specified thatās not the case. Itās an exploit that kills the otherwise creative nature of the game, rendering most of the fun aspects of the game impertinent.
I didnāt go through any trouble to annoy my opponenta. Maybe you mean āwouldā? So far, the most I did against mirror was resign, as I said. Iām not sure how they would be thankful when blocking is a one-side action with no notification. Moreover, I donāt see how me using all my time or not putting all my effort into my moves is any different than the rhetoric of mirror go, in terms of staying within the rules and boundaries but not letting the opponent enjoy the game.
I assume most if not all play go because they enjoy the game, which is why I am surprised when people react when I suggest to play mirror go against people who want to play it as well.
You seem to have misread several things, like me having annoyed some opponent or me having claimed mirror go is the ultimate strat. Please read more carefully next time before replying.
To be clear, I have no objections to making an unranked game on OGS and playing mirror against someone who is willing to explore. I also have no objections to making a custom ranked game and calling it āmirror goā, notifying the opponent beforehand. Again, no objections to anyone who mirrors within first 5 moves on OGS and doesnāt call it āescapingā when their opponent resigns on move 5(same with fox and move 10). No objections to top level players exploiting it to make the game simpler and skip certain phases since there is prizes involved and it is highly competetive.
My objection is to people playing it to give you a choice between rank points and playing a very specific type of game (with outs that are just as specific). That just seems to me like they are after the rank points and are not enjoying the game and letting their opponent enjoy it as well. If they did, they wouldnāt do it in platforms where they could blindsight people with it but instead theyād try to play those games when they could consult it with their opponents first.
Iām asking myself if you ever tried to play it yourself.
Even just countering you need some creativity to use center moves at some point. Nothing obvious well for me at least.
Yes, in unranked games where I consulted with my opponents first. We reviewed later and dug out a video or two. The first time was against a midkyu OGS chatter who claimed he could teach me how to counter it, a couple after that against a stronger friend.
None of the games felt like they involved much creativity except for maybe one sequence at some point, which seemed more knowledge-related than creativity-related to me.
I donāt think I have ever played mirror against someone who didnāt specify they were ok with that type of game beforehand. I might in the future, when Iām feeling particularly anti-social. Iāll regret it later though.
The answer is not in opposing knowledge vs creativity, that was not what i meant. I mean you see some easy things there of mediocre quality which impress me.
Things not creative, under way in go.
Let me try.
The one who is in charge to build the game being symetrically copied has the opportunity to build a counter. How could we think that his choices in the opening will not matter when the time comes to set foot to the center? Itās to say that from the very beginning, josekis and such, we play full power go with its creativity and more. The one copying is not that much in a easy role, heās keeping an eye on his opponent plan.
Let me repeat. Iāve been on both ends of such games. They felt no were nearly creativity-related as most other go games I played. Do you really expect me to take your theorizing over my own experience?
I am not saying there is a problem to solve in such a game - I am saying there is practically only one problem to solve and it makes the game feel more one-dimensional.
Saying something is knowledge-related or that it doesnāt seem creativity related isnāt the same as saying something is easy or mediocre quality. Mirror go is difficult in a boring way.
It is evident that it is a very specific type of go game, almost a variant. Hence, I suggest people consult their opponents before engaging in it, just to make sure both sides are enjoying it. Of course not a āmustā considering it is within the rules of the game but that kind of logic opens up a lot of possibilities because rules are definitive to a certain extent. I would like to play in a way that keeps my opponent thinking āhe is keeping my enjoyment of the game in mind so I should do the sameā. Mirror go seems like the opposite of that to me.
Well then i am afraid you could come to exclude a lot more variants. Is a sanrensei too straight forward? A great wall?
I feel strange to exclude any kind of go games. I have to be strong and able to play wherever my opponents want to play and there is much more as copying in a mirror game. Itās going to some deepness and mystery like any other kind i played. No more no less. And i never asked anyone if he likes or not how i start, thatās something i would feel out of context.
Letās just say I get your point and end this convo that became between you and me and feels out of place in a forum. Others probably have things to say things about it, sorry about the hijack.
What āboard stateā are we talking about?
