Skip to Content

3D Go

3 replies [Last post]
ACG
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

Hi! How plausible would it be to have a 3D variation of Go with a 7x7x7 board (343 stones)? Each stone would have 6 liberties. Would it make it too difficult to surround enemy pieces? What if we could the restriction on capturing to 4 (or maybe 5) of the six liberties?

Thanks in advance,

ACG

CDRodeffer
Offline
Joined: 08/04/2008
Re: 3D Go

ACG wrote:
Hi! How plausible would it be to have a 3D variation of Go with a 7x7x7 board (343 stones)? Each stone would have 6 liberties.

In standard Go, adding a stone to extend a connected group usually adds only two liberties, but in orthogonal 3D Go, you'd usually be adding four new liberties. A player setting out to capture a volume would need two extra moves, and defending would be much easier. The 7^3 space may lessen that somewhat by making the edges that much closer, but I believe this is still way too much to make the game playable, or at least anything like regular Go. There would be lots of volume building, but probably very few captures.

ACG wrote:
Would it make it too difficult to surround enemy pieces? What if we could the restriction on capturing to 4 (or maybe 5) of the six liberties?

On a slightly different train of thought, how about a psuedo-3D Go, where instead of volumetric captures, you can capture any coplanar pieces that would normally be captured if it were a standard Go game played on that plane (limited to the cardinal planes, of course). This would be like playing 7^3 simultaneous regular (planar) Go games, except that all those games intersect, and captures on one plane affect the status of games on several other planes. Hmmm.... Does anyone think this would be playable?

Clark

OutsideLime
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
3D Go

I don't play Go often but I do understand the rules...

I don't think that a 7-layer 7x7 board would work. First of all, for practical purposes the thing would have to be around 30 inches tall (to allow for reasonable room for your hands to squeeze in there between layers and place/remove stones)

Then it would kinda have to be transparent, or at least transluscent, so you can have some sort of freedom of observation. Even so, I still think that you wouldn't be able to "line up" stones in the centre regions of the boards visually so that a grasp of the developing srategy would come smoothly. That's a lot of layers.... perspective won't come easily. Even by looking straight down through the top through transluscent layers means that any stones in place will block your vision of whatever's below.

Also, you're suggesting a major tweak to the rules of an otherwise closed system that has proven to be functionally perfect. 6-way liberty would require me to devote many more pieces to capture yours than before. In standard Go, I would need a minimum of 4 pieces to surround 1 of yours. In your version I would need a minimum of 6. The offensive value of each stone has now changed dramatically for the worse.

The 4-of-6 liberty surround system doesn't fly either. The rule for Go is not "Place stones in the 4 liberties of an enemy stone or chain to surround and capture it." It's "Place stones in ALL of the liberties of an enemy stone or chain to surround and capture it." This is a vital diference. Remember, you're not necessarily capturing one enemy stone at a time.

Now, I'm not saying that a multi-layer AbStrat along the lines of Go couldn't work, or isn't a good idea.... it just doesn't seem to me like a direct Go translation to multi-level would be functional and still retain all the qualities that make Go the balanced and pure system that it is.

~Josh

FateTriarrii
Offline
Joined: 01/04/2009
3D Go

I agree that six liberties would be a little much. But the normal-plane capture idea is interesting... That might fly. I think that would work!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut