How am I stabbing @martin3141 ?
I’m trying to stay on friendly terms with both of my two neighbours.
2 Likes
Who would we attack? I’m not stabbing Auri, so that would leave shinuito or martin3141, and neither have given me any reason to attack.
1 Like
I’m thinking of playing something around H11. I’m open to suggestions from Vsotvep and yebellz though.
2 Likes
Nobody, I believe attacking is bad. Why are you talking so aggressively, I’m going for peace here. 
2 Likes
If it makes someone a target if they were not to join it, possibly there is some advantage in joining it. But it’s not a super rational pact in the first place, since it really favors a chosen few.
Who ever ends up with most territory, profits most of it - which seems unfair, a peace contract should benefit the weakest not the strongest. 
1 Like
I am considering something like L13 for my next move. I’m not sure if @yebellz is also planning to play E13, but if so, maybe we should figure out something that leaves you some space to live?
2 Likes
The peace contract benefits everyone if enough people join, since nobody will be able to properly attack.
1 Like
That’s some bull**** and you know it 
I didn’t start with a corner, so I’m not likely to survive the passive game. I figure my best shot is to forge a strong alliance and position myself flexibly to mount a counterattack on any attacks. Otherwise I would agree with you that aggression isn’t the best strategy here.
4 Likes
I’m flexible about my next move, open to suggestions as well. I don’t have to play E13, as that might be viewed as a bit too greedy.
Another option for @Vsotvep is to submarine into O8, further denying base to those stones pressing from above.
2 Likes
I think Civilian has raised a good point about the nonaggression pact. I will honor it unless someone else abuses its terms against me or one of my allies first, though.
2 Likes
I don’t, as a matter of fact. How do you think it’s false logic?
Suppose 5 members of the non-aggression pact exist, then nobody can attack without being eliminated as long as they have a group on the board with 4 liberties, assuming that 4 members of the non-aggression pact honour their agreement.
Since it’s beneficial to honour the pact as well (you show that you’re dependable and that you got each other’s backs even if it’s not in your personal interest). In fact, once the pact has been honoured, the non-members of the pact do become likely targets, since they have not shown to be dependable.
1 Like
But whoever has less territory will have to break it and the whole thing falls apart, because the very people who must enforce the pact, are the ones who will be its next target.
1 Like
I was hoping to stay on friendly terms with @Samraku, but they increasingly seem to be only interested in aggression…
1 Like
There are different levels of aggressiveness that one can approach this game with. Attacking outright to eliminate players with capturing is one possible strategy. However, I think such levels of aggression will be detrimental to both the attacker and defender.
Another approach is to peacefully build. Then, this becomes a game of territory, to see who builds most efficiently. Effective cooperation and peace will be rewarded by more stable and prosperous growth.
I, for one, would like to play a peaceful game, but that also means that I’m willing to do whatever is necessary to maintain that peace.
3 Likes
With permission, attachments are fine, of course. It’s the aggressive part of attaching to a stone without consent that would trigger the pact. Attaching to stones of players who are removed due to violating the treaty is not a form of aggression, it’s a form of self-preservation.
2 Likes
I’m interested in honesty. Maybe I will lose out on the board for it, but if I start saying things without fully meaning them, I will lose value as an ally for the rest of the game.
1 Like
This is exactly my stance.
2 Likes
I think shinuito, martin3141, and myself stand to lose out in that bargain.
2 Likes
We have a match where you can’t pass.
Imagine everyone agrees to the pact - who is going to breach it first?
The person with the least territory, is the first to either having to choose suicide or to breach the pact.
Who will have the luxury of breaching it last?
The person with most territory.
I’m all for a peaceful match, but I don’t want it at the cost of tyranny.
Vive la liberté! Even if it means my death
1 Like