![]() StartingPoints Referenced by Homepages
|
Three Colour Ongoing Game
PageType: OngoingGame
Ongoing game of three colour go, started on the 1st of October 2003. Rules:
Black: David (20 kyu) White: Floris Barthel Red: Araldo van de Kraats (4 kyu)
B73: I think this gives Red a chance of living, but he'll have to give up the lower right corner, which I hope to keep White from getting and keep for myself. (A little later.) As I look at the board more closely, I think that this was not such a good move. White a, Red b solidifies White's hold on the right side, possibly allows Red to connect, and cuts me off from the right.
B70: B68 made this move sente. (Red, but not White, has to respond or risk being cut. I guess you can call that sente.) Next, I plan to attack at a and b. Floris: Hmm, well Araldo, looking at your stones, I do not think any of them will live, because they do not have a base anywhere, so I am guessing you will be third whatever the case. I don't think you have many options. The easiest for you is resigning (auto third, David and I would contine). Your next two choices are helping either me or David. I would probably be an easier target because of my B2 group that might be killable with the effort of two (David first, I second, you third). David really doesn't have much to attack, and reducing is not an option since your stones would die (no possible connection to any base). Another option is attempting to get help from either David or myself to make a living group, although this will be very hard, and the person helping will have to give up points so there's a chance for him to become second. Araldo: You are right, it is likely they will all die. Still, resigning for one person is not an option (not allowed by the rules). What I will do first is a few hopeless attempts to make two eyes anyway. After it is impossible to live, I will pass or make a few random or annoying moves, and see what happens. David: You have one eye at G8. I think the rules should allow one person to resign at a time.
R69: I just estimed the score: David and Floris almost equal, I maybe 15 points behind. So now I have difficulties deciding what to do. Please provide me with some arguments / counterarguments for the following options:
Obviously the first two options are better for me, so it will probably be one of these. David: It's desirable to finish second rather than third. Imagine that this is a tournament game, and the difference between second and third is the difference between advancing or not. You'll probably have more luck attacking Black than White. Practically, though, I think you'll have trouble just surviving. Red is right in the middle of where Black and White want to expand. I especially want to kill you, because many of your stones would become my territory.
B64: This narrows Red's lower escape route and aims at a. Araldo: Nice Empty triangle ;) Floris: Oh and Araldo, you should thank me for not playing at 'b' or you would have been dead. Just making sure David doesn't get too much ^_^ David: I thought for sure you would play b. Oh, well. Araldo: It doesn't matter much for me, since I'm last place even when all my stones survive. Thanks anyway.
B61: It looks like Red will have trouble making eyes in the center now. R63: Actually, making eyes in the center was never my intention. But now, connecting doesn't look very easy either.
B58: I said I'd do it, so I'll do it. When I first thought of this position, I thought that White would capture immediately and force Red to settle the position, allowing me to rescue my B9 group. Now I think that White probably won't, and Red doesn't have to respond until he does. That leaves a lot of aji in the position. Saving Red makes the score more even between White and Red. The goal is to win the game, of course, and so I want to keep my opponents' scores about equal. Concentrating too much on one color allows the other to gain ground. If Red dies, White has three corners and a side, and will probably beat both Black and Red. R60: Thank you very much, David.
B55: I'll save you on my next turn, Araldo, if you put up a fight. Here I'll take the free move that such a fight will allow me. W56: I don't think red can live anymore, not even if David helps because he is red AND white's opponent after, so his stones would die if they were surrounded by red, or by red and white together. For example 'a' and 'b' are both illegal moves. Oh and Araldo, are you coming to the Martini Cup this weekend? David: What about Red at C11, Black at d? That's what I had in mind. Floris: Hmm, it seems to work, i didnt think of that :) But:
Araldo: I also did not think of that. Funny, that only the "weakest" player noticed the solution. I guess Floris is right, there seems to be no good reason not to play e for David, and let me die. When this happens, I have clearly no chance to win the game, so in this case, my target will be to become second. This can be accomplished by helping one of you to attack the other. To put it more simple: I can decide the winner. If David plays e, it will be Floris.
B52: This looks to me to have more potential than a reduction on Red closer to the center. R54: I expected W53, but unfortunately I cannot protect everything. David, can you do me a favour? Please play C13, to save my corner (I hope that is correct). In return I will help you with something you want. Maybe let you connect the B9 group to the rest, or kill the lower-left white corner. Your choice. David: I think it's interesting that you ask me to save you, when you could also ask Floris not to kill you in return for some favor. Araldo: Yes, it is interesting. Actually it never crossed my mind to ask Floris, but I'm not sure why. David: I did the same thing when I asked White to help block Red at move 43.
B49: I'm afraid this will strengthen Red, but it will strengthen me, too. R51: Oh no - Not another red target!
B46: Thanks, Floris. I'll open up another front against Red. My idea is that we can both take territory while Araldo defends his groups. R48: Now it is getting interesting...
B43: With this move I hope to protect my group and get ahead of Red's push to the right. Some help from White from above would be helpful in keeping Red from connecting. a remains interesting.
B40: I was tempted to try to trap Red with a (F7), but this looks too big to pass up.
B37: This is awesome. Forget about trying to kill White. W38: Although i would like to atari at a, I am afraid red will endanger my group after he captures. R39: 'a' remains interesting. But I'd better strengthen a bit first.
B34: I'll try to kill the white group, because a fight with Red looks like it loses my top group for sure while White takes territory. R36: Splitting attack! Anything else is boring.
B31: It's hard to say which is the right move here. I've played through many possibilities, and this one seems to be the most promising. Depending on what happens, I may be able to connect to my group on top. Floris: Ok, I'm back. Let's continue. (Sebastian:) This is an interesting 3-color situation.[1]
B28: This is to prevent a white play at the same location, which would allow White and Red to cause pain on the left side. I think this is more important than trying to grab some more territory in the middle. Floris: Why play 'c' araldo? You'll only get yourself killed with c. Bad shape too. Also when surrounding stones, who gets to capture? The side to complete the capture? Araldo: 'c' is indeed bad shape and more dangerous for me. But it has some advantages: it creates a cutting point in your wall and I can run out if you don't respond. I admit it was not a great idea (E10 maybe more fun). The side to complete the capture, captures (duh). But there is no need to assign captured stones to the person who did the actual capture, since we will use area scoring (no need to keep track of the amount of captured stones at all). R30: I must be insane! Floris: Araldo, if you cut then i just capture the cutting stone in a net. Anyways, I will be going on vacation tommorow so most likely i won't play a next move. I will be a away for a week, so the game will be halted during that time, unless you guys would rather have someone substitute for me (which is fine with me). Araldo: Have a nice trip. Let's continue when you are back.
B25: Here I try to keep a yet-unchallenged red group from expanding. I think that a play by me at a (C12) or b kills Red with help from White. R27: B25 seems a good move (at least in normal go). Now black has claimed about half of the board. Floris, I think we should do something about it soon. Don't you agree? To reduce the pressure on you a bit, I played R27, instead of c what I normally would do. This may give you an opportunity to recover a bit.
B22: I hope I'm not being too timid, but I think this is necessary.
Sebastian: May I kibbitz? David, you can't be so wrong - W23 seems even more timid. Such a strategy makes sense if you have to expect two stones for every single stone you play (Such as Araldo: Difficult to say. How I see it:
B19: This move keeps Red from playing at a ( Araldo: Probably black would have played at a even without B19. R21: Let's see if I can make some living thing with this move. Normally it should live, but in this crazy game you never know.
B16: I want to try to tighten up my connections, which are less secure against two opponents than against one. The situation at the upper left might be considered a capturing race. I thought about getting involved at a (B11), b or c. R18: I feel a disaster coming for either red or white... and black may decide.
B13: This is getting interesting! I'll block on the wider side and see whether White lives in the lower left or responds to the invasion at the upper left. W14: I'm not gonna explain my moves to my opponent :PP I'd rather wait until the end of the game. R15: Do as you wish. But I see it more as manipulation: a really powerful weapon ;)
B10: This seems like a big point. I also thought of playing at a, but that struck me as too passive. R12: This feels a bit like backstabbing white. b seems like a good point too, but I think that is too harsh on black and brings the game out of balance.
B7: I think that my stone at L10 can't live if both of you attack it at once (though there might not be much territory left in that corner after you kill it). I'll leave it alone for now and extend from my other corner, trying to face only one opponent at a time. R9: Seems it will be a rather pacifistic game: let's all share the board in peace!
B4: The first player in this game can get two corners. It's fitting that I'm the weakest player. R6: On the downside: since you have two corners you will be attacked first ... with a double approach!
B1: Radical! R3 - En Garde!
Araldo: Since numbering
Sebastian: How about if you used letters only for red, like this Maybe use q r s t u v w x y z for red's moves, so a ... p can still be used for the usual discussion. -- 2003-09-30
SnotNose: Or, if you only allow three moves per diagram, you don't need any special labelling for
Sebastian: Or Yet another idea: Use
Araldo: I like the last suggestion best. Using letters is probably not a very good idea.
David: Allowing only three moves per diagram is best. I think red
moves should be marked with a square on an empty intersection (a circle
on an empty intersection for the most recent move at the top). This is
more visually distinctive to me and leaves I have made this edit visible to let people know the game is starting. Floris, on your turn you should change this page's type to OngoingGame. Araldo: The circle and square on an empty intersection are a bit too small for my taste. But we can at least try it for a while.
David: Another question is how to number black and white moves on the
board. Let's try giving them the move number
Anonymous: Does't this affect certain life and death problems? For example, eyespace of 4 in a row is not alive. Also, wouldn't any game between experts end in a 3-way draw, because the two people that are behind would gang up on the leader? Now that I think of it, 4-color go is more interesting, with two teams of two. [1]
(Sebastian:) This is an interesting 3-color situation. Even if W and B team up against Red, the red hane (red ring) is a safe connection since
unkx80: Then B37 at (Sebastian:) But of course - this works! [2] So the following would be allowed?
(Sebastian:) What if there were a Ko? Can
David: Certainly. Even in a classic ko position like this one, Black and White may keep recapturing as long as Red is changing the state of the board somewhere else.
David: Actually, that's not true. It would be true if we were using
the situational superko rule, but we're using the
positional superko rule in this game. It seems to me that
Black has a big advantage in this position. He doesn't have to make
any threats because he may recapture whenever it is his
turn (Red plays just before Black, changing the state of the board,
unless Red passes).
I don't know if a three-color ko position exists, where all three players want to play locally but are sometimes prevented from doing so because of the ko rule. (Sebastian:) Does anybody know if there are real red (or otherwise colored) stones available? Wouldn't it be fun even for a two-color game to play with different colors for a change? Araldo: Last weekend I saw people playing 3 colour go with plastic go-stones coloured red, blue and yellow. Together with normal stones they can be used to play 2-5 colour go. I don't know where you can buy them. Klaus: what happens with big eyless group? This may sound silly, but nin of the other players will like to play atari, because then the nex Player can make the capture. (Or do I misunderstand the way captured stones are counted?) David: With area scoring, points are removed from the captured player's score, instead of being added to the capturing player's score as in territory scoring. It doesn't matter to the score which player captures (though it may matter tactically). Dead groups partially surrounded by two players will probably be captured, because the other players want to maximize their score. There may exist positions where a group without eyes lives in something like seki, but I haven't thought of any for three players. Klaus: Seems to make sense, even in a game with more than 3 players. This is a copy of the living page "Three Colour Ongoing Game" at Sensei's Library. ![]() |