Newbie's first impressions

[Whollaborg]

FarAway Pretender said:
Very interesting thread, all of you! I don't think I've ever seen so many of my favorite games posted in one place, ever, and certainly not such a wide variety.

MoM, AoW, Heroes, Settlers of Catan, Dom 2, and so many others.

The Go example you cite is interesting. Almost all of us bring our own personal/cultural views into the gaming experience. I'm oversimplifying a little here, but let me make a few comparisons. Chess is a pretty Western game--clearly defined rules, combinations and permutations of differing abilities and weaknesses, straight and clean lines of power projecting onto the blank field of a game board, and dramatic moments of victory often come when a mighty opponent is toppled by a destructive attack.

Go is rife w/more Eastern themes. Notions of space are as important to winning the game as are the pieces. Rather than viewing space as an empty nothingness that pieces move through as they assert their power against other pieces, space is as vital a part of winning as are the pieces. The whole duality of Western thinking is replaced by the seamless integration of the whole.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself right here--I have no graduate education in Philosophy at all, but I've lived in both parts of the world, and I recognize parts of each culture in those games.

FarAway Pretender,
I am stupified to find out that you took the words out of my mind even before i had read this discussion.

My point is all about GO, which just has the Crown of games for me in this Hall of Fame of computer / classical games we all enjoyed. As a lowly apprentice in Greek / European philosophy I cannot but agree you FarAway Pretender!

I see it in the way that the game of GO offers more intuitive type of strategy game instead bit more calculative and rigid system of chess. This means a kind of holistic approach instead of Aristotelian type of categorising objects of world according to rules that are created by that gategorising.
GO for it!

About Dom2,
I just recently joined the multiplyer community after enjoying years of single playing with both Dominions. I recommend you trying mp as well.

[Reverend Zombie]

FarAway Pretender said:
Notions of space are as important to winning the game as are the pieces. Rather than viewing space as an empty nothingness that pieces move through as they assert their power against other pieces, space is as vital a part of winning as are the pieces.

Not to drag this thread hopelessly off-topic, but I can see the above being said about chess as well. A large part of chess is about controlling said space, perhaps that is where the difference lies? I don't know enough about Go to say. But the board in chess is far from an "empty nothingness."

[PCarroll]

Reverend Zombie said:
Not to drag this thread hopelessly off-topic, but I can see the above being said about chess as well. A large part of chess is about controlling said space, perhaps that is where the difference lies? I don't know enough about Go to say. But the board in chess is far from an "empty nothingness."

Space is certainly a prominent feature in both chess and go. Some writers boil chess play down to three basic principles: force, space, and time (to these, Seirawan adds pawn position). I think the game of go could also be understood in terms of force, space, and time.

But if we zero in on the concept of space, it seems to play a different role in each game.

In chess, the idea is to develop your pieces and advance your pawns so as to control more space on the board (especially the central space or, later in the game, the space around the kings). Doing so maximizes your army's mobility while minimizing your opponent's. And since mobility is mainly what makes one piece more valuable or powerful than another, by dominating space on the board, you weaken the enemy's force. Thus, force would seem to be the main concept--one that's modified by how much space you control.

In go, space would appear to be the dominant concept. Space (eyes, or vacant spaces) gives life to your stones, and space is all (except prisoners) that counts toward victory. Since the stones are immobile, they have no force in the chess sense; what force they do have is determined by their relative position in space. A group of stones, properly placed and connected, can exert unassailable force--but it's more a "force field" which contains the space it surrounds and depends upon for life.

To win at chess, you must exert inescapable *force* against the enemy king. To win at go, you must fence in the lion's share of *space.*

Have we forgotten about the third factor, time? There must be a game in which time (or timing) is the dominant concept. Maybe checkers (draughts) or backgammon or mancala. I'll have to ponder on that.

--Patrick