A major contributing factor is certainly that I read your comment just 34 minutes after my dreaded 3am work alarm… I like to believe a more awake BHydden would not have responded so passive-aggressively.
1 Like
n-Tuple Go.
6 Likes
I’m sure this is a joke, but I would actually be so delighted if this option beat Team Go (though I still vote for Rengo)
How popular? Not in my own experience (i never saw it myself)
If we go into including all go variants (diplomatic, democratic, pyramidal, fractional,… ) because there are more as 2 players then the list is long but i don’t think this is what is referred by the word rengo. (Well not in this topic at least)
Pairgo is a name used by federation, tournament system for the specific case of male +female teams, it would be unwise to interfer.
Rengo doesn’t refer to all go variants played with more as 2 players but to a similar way of playing a game of go between 2/2 players as between 1/1. Sometimes extended to more players. The term is more a mystery for a new comer like atari or joseki but its meaning is shared by the go players community.
Team go may refer to championship organization (n players paired vs n players, or a team vs a team with direct elimination) more as what we call rengo.
Automatically yes. Now there is a very common manual practice largely used (like for tournaments for example) to calculate it and can be a nice bonus to have that automated option
Interesting
A bit too mathematical, not sure it would be understood or accepted by all as a replacement for the word rengo.
But do we really need a new word?
3 Likes
I said “money for work” because i prefer that as “money for nothing” which is sadly pretty common in our world. I didn’t have any intention to debate on the amount of the bounty and sure we are lucky.
1 Like
That ain’t working, that’s the way you do it!
Surely nobody needs the link but here it is anyway...
2 Likes
It should be called “Rengo”. As people pointed out that Pair Go and Team Go are different things.
2 Likes
Here’s the “spec” that I think is workable - the bounty of $2000 motivates me to try to get this in place within 3 months:
- A player can create a “Rengo” challenge, which is an invitation for others to participate in a Rengo game.
- Most game-creation parameters that are normally available, are available
- Rengo games are unranked
- Conditional moves are disabled
- Correspondence might work, but it is not required to as part of this implementation.
- Others can nominate to join that game (likely subject to rank restrictions on the game creation page, but not subject to “you have to be within 9 stones", which only applies to ranked games anyhow”)
- The original creator selects which team the nominating players are on (and whether they get to play at all in this challenge)
- When the original creator presses “Start”, the game starts.
- Ideally, the players get to “Accept” at this time, though this is not mandatory for this implementation.
- Minimum number of participating Rengo-Players supported: 4.
- Note: 3-player Rengo could also be supported, along with 4,5 … this bullet just says that ‘4’ is the number that must be allowable.
- Players should only be on the online-go.com site and not in need to visit other websites or use of external programs
- Each player has thir own dedicated game board where they make a move every 1 out of 4 turns (if it’s 4-player Rengo, 1 in n turns in case n-player Rengo with n != 4 even gets implemented, which would be nice but not required.) They make a move by either clicking on an intersection of the go board to place a stone, or click on pass or resign, just like for normal non-Rengo games.
- A single clock applies to the activies of each side (black and white). The time taken by the active player on each time is the time that is used in the clock.
- For making their move (play a stone, pass or resign) Players just use the same, usual UI functions as for non-Rengo games on OGS, no need for entering coordinates manually or other helper functions.
- Each player just needs one browser tab to participate in the Rengo game, same as for normal non-Rengo games on OGS.
- No need for account sharing or credential sharing, every player can just participate with their normal OGS account like they would in any normal non-Rengo game too.
- Undo is not required to work in any particular way.
- Hopefully one turn of undo will work, but there may be unforseen complications.
Do we need any more words, or corrections?
10 Likes
That all sounds good to me (not that I’m the funder).
Is there a pre-existing standard as to whether each team shares a clock or whether all individuals have their own clock? (Obviously, in the case of the latter, any individual timeout would cause the team to lose)
I could think of good arguments for either implementation, but for simplicity I think OGS should just stick to one of them… Is one predominantly popular in standard rengo tournaments?
1 Like
I added a bullet that says that there is a single clock per team for this proposal.
2 Likes
Awesome. Nothing else comes to mind right now. Sounds like a solid initial implementation.
OOC, do you plan to add 4 player cards or keep the current 2 players cards and just put 2 names / ranks on each?
2 Likes
I’m not entirely sure, but I at the moment I think that the non-active players will be listed below the cards of two active ones at any given time.
Which I think means that the cards will show “the player who has to play now” (clock ticking) and “the player who played the previous stone”.
2 Likes
- The players should see (and be able to use) the same chat window
- Undo could be tricky (who needs to accept?)
- Conditional moves could be tricky
5 Likes
Undo/conditional moves simply follow the sequence of moves with agreement of last player. Anyway it will be short lengthy (one move back) because of no communication allowed.
Maybe these features could be discarded although It’s nice for a (real) missclick.
1 Like
Yeah I think I would disable conditional moves - it makes no sense in this context.
Undo may be OK - the person who just played would be able to press undo, and the person who has control on the other side would be able to accept, so misclick can be handled.
Going further back would “work” in some sense, BUT it could result in different players being given control than the person who originally made the move. I think in the first implementation “you get what you get” in this respect.
2 Likes
I think it’d need a re-write of OGS, actually. The number of places where the idea that there is “a black player and a white player, and players are either one of those or the other” is … everywhere.
(And I’m busy writing “black_team_blah” and “white_team_blah” all over the place 
)
1 Like
Well… This is very disappointing to hear. I had (apparently naive) hopes it would not take much after your updates.
1 Like
In your honour I wrote a routine that takes team colour as a parameter 
3 Likes
Naw shucks 
you shouldn’t have 
It would be nice to have those games listed in each of the players game history too.
Maybe add a button for suggesting resignation to your teammate? Something to make resignation as mutual decision, but without other team knowing that one players thinks its hopeless.
4 Likes