Go-ing Again
To the non-player, chess and Go seem like similar games. Two people, a board, some pieces, and you get to kill stuff.
I played on my high school’s chess team for 4 years, and even earned a varsity letter for my time and effort. I was ranked second board for at least 2 of those years, yet I never exactly had fun playing. I didn’t like that in order to play exceptionally well, you have to be fairly well-versed in attack and defense pattern sequences that have been analyzed to death by experts over the years. That makes it seem less like a game, and more like taking a final exam in a history class…where’s the fun in that?
I played go for only a quarter during my sophomore year at RIT; I felt inclined to stop when spring quarter rolled around since my schedule felt long enough without the need to drop 2-4 more hours at meetings of the Empty Sky Go Club twice a week (on my long days…grr). It was thanks to Julie Zobel—also a member of the House of General Science—that myself, Matt Chan, Jamil Khan, and Jason Dyer were introduced to the game.
I find that go is nothing like chess. Chess is a battle, whereas go is a war. I don’t know the numbers off the top of my head, but on a purely mathematical level, go is much more complex. Computer scientists can create professional-level chess-playing programs, but designing an AI that can play go well on a 19x19 board has not been done yet (to my knowledge). Go also has fewer rules than chess. ;+)
Once the fall edition of murder started on HOGS, I started spending some of my evenings in Java Wally’s playing and watching Go, since staying away from the floor until at least 11pm each night guarantees “survival” for that day. Even though murder has already run its course, I think I’ll try to play on a regular basis.
It feels odd to play Go again. Most of the little things that I had started to learn feel like echoes of knowledge in the vacant spots of my gray matter. I noticed the other night that I still tend to view the board in the same way I used to look at a chessboard: I look for kills instead of territory. This is a bad habit, since it is territory that decides the winner in a game of Go (though killing does have its merits).
One of the aspects of Go that I do find in striking contrast to chess is that once you have an established ‘living’ structure in Go, you can feel free to ignore it, since there is no way to remove it from the board. In chess, the pieces can move around the board, causing structures to fade into and out of existence. What was protected during one move could be completely vulnerable two moves later; the structure is dynamically shifting. A game of Go evolves in time; living groups have patterns that stagnate, and all other structures fluctuate from one intermediate configuration to the next, striving to live or to kill. The time evolution reminds me of cellular automata.
Since Go is a game of patterns, with each game, players find themselves amid a sea of raw data. Given enough time, will the glimmers of nodal points show their faces?



a freshly iced tux
a side pic of the cake
the cake with some text
a shrink-wrapped version of linux