![]() StartingPoints Referenced by Homepages
|
Unusual Gobans
Keywords: Equipment, Software
Go can be played on virtually any surface, provided it's flat enough. It has been played on maps of the world, among other things. For all these games, the normal rules apply. Non-square rectangular gobansThe simplest of these is a rectangular goban, see 13x9 for an example game. Gobans smaller than 2x3 typically lead to a game which ends with repetitive captures, and the game end becomes highly dependent on the ruleset used. Irregular gobansOther possibilities lie in the creation of gobans which are irregular. The simplest one of these is basically a normal goban, with a hole in the middle, but of course you can make a goban in any shape you wish, and the lines connecting the intersections need not necessarily be straight, equal length or even at straight angles to each other. However, gobans like these are normally made more for fun than to play serious games on. For a game on a goban with no tengen, see Virtueless. If you are wondering how to create an irregular go board within these pages, see Creating Irregular Gobans With Wiki. From a post to RGG by Matthew MACFADYEN:[...] A good one was a map of Switzerland, constructed in 1984 by Patrice GOSTELI. Here there were 361 intersections with numbers of liberties varying from 1 to about 15. Features included:
Other possibilities lie in playing on regular boards where the points are not connected as squares. Hexagonal connections (chinese checkers layout) can be played on, as can of course any combination of triangles, squares, pentagons, etc. etc.
There is a small Java program called "RoundGo?" available to play this variant over internet (no AI included). It can be downloaded I think of it as being a 'squashed' cylinder (hence I put it at 3DOn2DGoban - you can imagine it being stretched around the outside (or inside :-) of a cylinder - the number of intersections for each 'ring' is the same... --MortenPahle. The oddest go layout I have heard of was a 3-dimensional diamond crystal lattice. You can see a picture of a very small part of the structure at
Another interesting idea I have toyed with is the concept of playing go on Celtic Knots. You could play anywhere that two lines intersected, and a point's liberties would be the next 4 intersections reached by following the knot out in all 4 directions from that point. The result would be that some points would have liberties quite far away. If you allow play on corners (which occur differently in celtic knots than in grids) then all points would have 4 liberties, except the corners themselves which would have 2. Alternatively, if you do not allow play on corners, then some points would have 3 and 2 liberties. The way in which celtic knots are constructed would allow you to create boards in any shape, with interesting factors, such as permanent walls partway down the middle, or entire sections of the board connected to the rest by only one point. Because of the amazing diversity of celtic knots, and how easy it is to construct them, it would allow lots of variety. Take a look at
|
![]() |
diagonal liberties |
In this diagram, the black stone has just been captured. The marked white stone has four free liberties, each marked with a square.
This goban has a few unusual features:
(Sebastian:) So what's the point? Why make the game artificially confusing?
(Sebastian:) Well, yes, all unusual boards add some form of a challenge. But let me explain what I mean: Your change can be separated in a functional and a graphical component.
Functionally, your goban is equivalent to this: (Please ignore the stubs at the border)
![]() |
The graphical change is tantamount to (a) rotating them, (b) enmeshing them and (c) changing the lines so that they connect stones from different half-boards rather than adjacent stones. While this change does create an inconveniency which you may regard as a challenge, it certainly does not introduce any new way of playing, tactics or strategy.
As to the functional change, it actually takes away from the desirable complexity of go. Splitting the board into two disparate half-boards only destroys many interesting strategic connections. If you are willing to play for a certain amount of time in one chunk, why not just play on one board that's twice as big?
[0311050] "Simple" is misleading since this is a compound of two independent boards.