@yebellz doesn’t have to reduce the liberties of Black-Green this round.
What do you think I should do? Currently, submitting J4
H1 is better than J4, I think. We can try to kill F1 and G1. This way we only need four moves to kill green (E1, H1, J4, L2). If I work alone I need to play an additional move at F1.
But if there’s a nother move you want to play, feel free to do so.
Actually please find a good timing to grab S8.
@Maharani, perhaps this is a good time to try to break our stalemate. If Blue | White is planning not to play N6 or N7, we should maybe create the possibility that I overlap with Green | White and you end up with a solid stone on the other intersection.
Should we both play N6 / N7 randomly, not knowing which one the other will play? There’s 25% chance we end up with a solid Blue | Black stone like that, and as long as Blue | White does not play there, we don’t have to fear becoming disconnected. Even if Blue | White decides to play there, there’s only 12.5% chance that the end result gives a purely Blue | White stone.
I will delay my move until you have read this.
@yebellz pay attention to their plan. It’s not urgent to kill green. The pink group will be ALIVE.
Sounds good to me!
I just counted as well. Assuming all dead stones are eventually removed, and the green group dies, and if White can get all dame points as well, and the J5 & K5 happen to be cut off, and we cannot manage to get any territory gain with the L4 stone, then we have a worst case scenario for us, looking like this:
Removing all colours, we’re left with the following:
Counting the board:
Gives me 36×5 + 4 = 184 points for Black and 36×5 + 4 = 184 for White.
So, it’s an exact tie in the absolute worst case scenario.
Therefore, we have the following highly probable winning strategy for the next few rounds:
@Jon_Ko plays N6, I play N7, @Maharani plays each of N5 or S8 or N9 (it doesn’t matter much which). As long as Maharani can make one of these intersections purely Blue | Black or Blue | Black | White, we will have won.
If this objective fails and somehow both N9 and S8 become purely Blue | White, we will aim to capture the green stones and expand Blue | Black in that way.
As soon as we have gotten one more solidly alive Black stone on the board, we can let two players occupy N6 and N7, and have the third player remove the dead White stones inside our territory, cruising to victory like that.
The only way we could lose or tie, is if somehow we cannot manage to get one more point, or if we somehow get into a repetition while our empty territory is being nullified by White invaders.
Now or next turn? Because it’s already past the deadline.
@Vsotvep has not submitted yet. Next Reminder: 2022-06-24T06:00:00Z
I think this turn
I’m not sure what to do now. Somehow it feels wrong to change all our moves after the deadline. On the other hand I did object to your plan before the deadline, so you didn’t know which move to play from that point on.
The rule we agreed upon said we’ll wait for everybody’s move and call those out who didn’t make a move in time. We didn’t establish if communication is still allowed after the deadline (in order to coordinate the move). So now I’m wondering about that.
Well, what does @martin3141 think?
If I abused the timing rule to get more conversation space, I’ll retract my retraction and submit what I submitted.
I’ve been thinking of deadline extensions as basically asking for more time to complete the turn, including potentially more conversation or move changes. There has been at least one time, where I have changed my move after the deadline was extended by someone else not submitting a move.
As long as the extra time is usable by everyone equally, I think it is reasonable.
As a separate, but potentially related issue, I think that trying to specifically time last minute communication (i.e., talking and agreeing upon moves right before the deadline), in order to prevent the reaction of play by other people, should not be allowed. In the spirit of a public communication, I think that everyone should get a chance to see and react to all of the discussion in each round.
I don’t think that concern is applicable here for this case, but I just wanted to mention these thoughts as well. Also, I don’t think anyone has abused this so far. I think we might have even talked about this before.
I think so to (and believe to have expressed this somewhere in the history of this threat)
I was aware that communication would be a key part of this game, and for this reason I initially chose a more strict rule regarding the submission timelimit.
For some time at earlier stages of the game, I tried to vary the day-time of the submission deadline such that the game is not biased towards being advantageous for players of specific timezones. However I quickly fell back to choosing times adjusted to my personal day-night rhythm when we introduced the more casual time rule. So far the rules worked well, which is thanks to the good will and exemplary sportsmanship of you players.
So thank you for making a great game possible
Regarding this specific rules question, I think we don’t necessarily need to add a rule. We can trust that players will not try to exploit the system. But if we do want to establish a rule, this would be my first idea:
Players may communicate during a time-extension. If communication occurs during an extension, the arbiter waits until the next reminder time before proceeding to the next round (even if all moves have been submitted).
I believe this would ensure that all players have time to react to the time extension and the new messages.
Okay, I have changed my move.
I have submitted N5, S8 or N9.
I would love for this game to end up as a draw.