One natural way to generalize scoring in go is to assign different point values to different intersections. This can be done in lots of different ways, but I think a simple pattern is preferable, so that itâ€™s easy to keep track of point values without some sort of special overlay.

My suggestion is to start with a value of 1 along the first line, and then increase by 1 point per line all the way into tengen. On a 9x9 board the point values would be distributed like so:

My working title for this variant is â€śPyramid goâ€ť, since the point values could also be visualized like a square pyramid:

Area scoring is used (or should I say volume scoring? ): In the position below black has 16Ă—3 + 8Ă—4 + 5 = 85 points, while white has 32Ă—1 + 24Ă—2 = 80 points, so black is winning (assuming no komi).

If we were to change one of the 3-3 points from black to white, this would reverse the result (the new score would be black 82 to white 83).

Although Iâ€™ve used a 9x9 board to demonstrate the idea, I think bigger boards would be even more interesting. I expect a 19x19 game to start with fighting in the center, with tengen quite possibly being the optimal first move.

Pyramid go could be played like a normal game on OGS, except you will have to do the scoring manually or with some separate tool (maybe Iâ€™ll even try to figure out how to parse SGF files if Iâ€™m feeling adventurous ).

Anybody interested in trying it out? Iâ€™m open to any board size, time settings, etc.

The issue I see is that black is winning in the image after playing 16 stones, while white is still losing after playing 20 (maybe thatâ€™s not a real issue maybe just a bad illustration - itâ€™s a good scoring illustration though)

Tengen was already a good starting point on 9x9 so would the komi needed be large?

What about reversing the pyramid scores giving 5 points to the first line and 1 point to tengen?

Indeed, hence why I think it will do better on bigger boards! Although my example position is not realistic, I think itâ€™s safe to say that the first move is extremely valuable on 9x9. Making komi bigger can make the game fair, but it will still be a bit boring (too similar to regular 9x9 game). On 19x19, it will not be possible for one side to claim all of the center, and it will look very different from a normal game.

I certainly wouldnâ€™t mind trying other distributions later though! Two other playable ideas:

Star points worth 10, other points worth 1.

1st to 4th line worth 0 points, rest of board worth 1.

But back to the game, it would be very interesting on like 19x19.

So tengen is 19 points. I guess enclosing the corner, normally ~ 15 points in two moves is probably going to be worth less than an empty triangle in the middle?

10 points! Also, a corner enclosure is worth more than usual too (in absolute terms). But Tengen will still be super valuable, because it exerts influence over all the most valuable points on the board.

Mirror go can be broken in all the normal ways, although the considerations on how to to do it in the best way (without giving the opponent a good chance to stop mirroring after making you play some bad move) would be a bit different from usual.

If black opens on tengen and mirrors for the rest of the game, and white doesnâ€™t break it, black will win by 10 points (the value of tengen) assuming no komi.

We used a pie rule instead of komi: Martin decided that G7 would be the first move, and I then decided to take black.

Edit: It was an exciting game! Things started in the center and moved outwards, as expected in this variant. Martin was ahead by alot in the middlegame, but towards the end we got into a close capturing race which I won by 1 liberty. The final score was B733 - W597.

(This hypothetical board shows that white is easily winning as long as the top group doesnâ€™t die)

If anyone else wants to try this variant, the scoring tool should be pretty easy to use - just click (or click and drag) to place stones, hold down shift to place white stones. Territories are detected automatically, but you need to remove all dead stones from the board.

Iâ€™ve been thinking about how this fun alternative scoring rule could be extended to any board (in other words a general graph). I have an idea in mind but would love to hear your thoughts about it. What do you think about this proposition?

Definition:

The distance of two vertices v, w of a connected graph is the length of a shortest v-w-path.

The excentricity of a vertex v is the maximum distance of v to another vertex.

The diameter of a graph is the maximum excentricity among its vertices.

Let G be a graph and v one of its vertices, let d(G) denote the diameter of G, ex(v) denote the excentricity of v.
The pyramid-go-value of v is 1 + d(G) - ex(v)

Does this definition give the same values for square boards as your original proposal? Iâ€™m not sure if Iâ€™ve understood it, and maybe something simpler to understand would be better. Could you provide some examples to justify this particular choice?

I thought this is the case but now that you ask I believe it may not be the case, letâ€™s see â€¦

The diameter of a square nxn board is the distance of two diagonal corner vertices, i.e. 2(n - 1)
Lets say n is odd, then the vertex of minimal excentricity is Tengen with ex(v) = n - 1

This certainly seems like the most natural generalization of the â€śpyramidâ€ť idea! (even though it doesnâ€™t quite agree on square boards, itâ€™s obviously very similar)

And for a disconnected graph it seems most natural to do the same thing component-wise.

(not that I think the pyramid-scoring has any particular benefit over other interesting scoring distributions one could come up with)

If you made the scoring for an intersection in some way opposite to how early it tends to get played in a game, one could get some sort of anti-go, at least in the usual learned sense

If instead of generalising to any graph, you generalise to any graph which has a boundary, then it becomes easier. The value of an intersection in pyramid-go is simply its distance to the boundary.

You can either draw the boundary around the board, or if your board is almost-a-grid, you can perhaps say:

Every intersection which has fewer than 4 liberties is considered to be at distance 1 from the boundary;

The distance of an intersection u to the boundary is one plus the minimum distance of u to a vertex at distance one from the boundary.