Go
 

I am amazingly slow on the uptake!

PROOF

Michiel's user icon displays an illegal operation in the game of Go. I did not know this back when the user last posted here (January...), but I do know this now. In the last six months or so, I've become mildly to moderately obsessed with the game.

ANYWAY

It can be inferred that Michiel is a fan of the game. And it can be inferred that Zeke is at least moderately knowledgable of its workings since he knew enough to offer a clever user title.

THEREFORE

I am going to assume that there are at least a few people around here who play the game. Yes, I am basing this on a poster who no longer posts and the perhaps trivial knowledge of the site's founder. DEAL WITH IT.

So... uh... anyone want to play sometime?

No?

THAT'S OKAY I WAS JUST CHECKING THANKS.

I first learned to play go when I was a student at the annual math camp I now run. I haven't played it a whole lot, but enough to appreciate its depth. The ko rule is one I find particularly interesting, so I understood Michiel's avatar right away.

Emanuel and Edward Lasker, two of the greatest chess players who ever lived, were fascinated with go; one of them observed that while chess is probably limited to this planet, an intelligent alien civilization would surely know go. (I say one of them because I can't confirm which. It seems to be credited to both of them in various wordings. Incidentally, they weren't brothers, but were related.) The Andromeda staff must have agreed, because go was Dylan Hunt's favourite game.

Hmm... for some reason I find it hard to reconcile Kevin Sorbo with Go. But fictional representations of Go are rare enough to always be cool Particularly that scene from the Chinese flick Hero.

I'm fascinated (and frustrated) by how computer-proof Go is. It's such a complicated game to grasp and excel at, and nobody seems to really have any good way of programming a computer to do it. A computer beat Kasparov, but it'll be a while before somebody makes a program that'll take out the world's top Go players.

The frustration lies in the necessity of finding a human opponent to play against.

'Atari' is a polite way of telling someone that one of their pieces is about to be consumed in 'Go', IIRC.

Used to play it a bit, but I haven't done so in years...

My brother was about to get addicted to it once, and then we played till very late at night. But only once, so I guess he gave up.

I remember reading an SF novel once where Go was rather heavily featured; aside from that I really don't know anything about it.

I knew about the "you can't replicate a previous board state" rule, and it seems sensible. I've read how in terms of gameplay depth vs. mechanics simplicity Go beats just about any other game EVER invented. Never played it myself. People say similar stuff about Mancala, and my sister loves it, but I just can't get into it. Guess I'm a spoiled member of Gen X.

The game's rules are simple, yes. But it's just so damn multifaceted and complicated. Balancing defense versus offense, balancing spreading out large ammounts of territory versus keeping pieces close together and defensible... if you play enough, you'll notice you improve in spurts. You'll master a concept and use it a bunch, but then you go up against a better player and realize you're still just an ant at this game.

A lot of players (particularly in Asia) take lessons just like they would for a musical instrument. Don't let the simplicity fool you, it's a very complicated game.

Never said it was simple. The gameplay mechanics are simple. Lightyears simpler than chess, when you get down to it. What's not simple is the need to look dozens of moves into the future and consider dozens of "if I do this, he'll do that, then I'll do..." scenarios. With chess you really can't do that, at least anyone this side of Deep Blue can't. Maybe half a dozen moves, tops. Go is, at least I think it is, "okay, we'll fight over that clump over here, and I'll secretly set up a takeover of this area over there, and he probably wants that clump in the corner..." Balancing more strategies needs more complicated tactical decisions.

Not really. It gets rather intuitive as you play more.

The only way to make it comprehensible is to actually play a few games.

I can see it now. "Hey, pieces, I was promised comprehensibility? You guys are still speaking gibberish! Shape up or be ataried!"

I can't get anyone to play Monopoly with me any more. I can't help it that I'm a gloater, you know. :(