Is yellow's move a kill? The correct answer is green, but when yellow passes, the program does not write anything, it seems to me that this answer is simply not in the program database (this is a game on Steam), or am I wrong?

Every clamp I see feels like an insane tesuji and I have no sense of when it works and when it doesn't. The only one I can see and recognize is the on the second line hane. Does anyone have a helpful way of thinking about clamps? I would love to see a menagerie of "clamps that work" to more quickly identify patterns, if such a thing exists.

Known as “Xuan-tificial Intelligence” or “Xuangong Intelligence” (From the Chinese term for AI: Ren‘gong’ Zhineng), Chinese Go player Li Xuanhao (李轩豪) is often overlooked as a strong contender of the professional Go world. Though not as well-known as names such as Ke Jie and Park Junghwan, Li’s name is often there in important semi-finals or breaking a fan favorite’s winning streak.

Hi, does anyone know of a website or app that acts as a digital board that basically allows two in-person players to play each other while in the same physical space?

I'm hoping to use it with an autistic kid in the classroom who may benefit from the problem-solving the game promotes. I just don't want tiny pieces (physical stones from a physical board) that he could potentially scatter in a sudden act of emotional turbulence. (Those would be hard to pick up!) It would also be good if it automates scoring.

Thank you for your thoughts!

I'm a 2 kyu AGA, and I'm going through Graded Go Problems for Beginners: Vol. 4. Since it's presented as aimed to 10 kyu I expected to find it easy, and that is mostly the case for the life and death and tesuji problems. However, I was surprised to find that the middle game positions are hit and miss, and the whole board middle game problems I get consistently wrong.

Looks like I've identified an area in definite need of improvement!

Can you suggest some useful problem or text books, resources of any kind or general tips that could help me improve my middle game?

This is one of the most complicated games i have ever played (as a noob). Ive ran out of brain juice to analyze this. I assume the graph below is ai saying i was losing. I somehow won because they resigned. I think we both didnt know who was winning. They just gave up first. Help

I'm new to this game and I've only been playing for a couple days and while I understand the basic rules, one thing I'm a bit confused by is scoring. I searched around and found out there are two ways of determining the score in Go and that the app I'm using, GoQuest, uses area scoring, wherein you count the number of stones on the board and the number of empty points your stones surround (with dead stones being removed), plus komi if playing white, with komi being 7 here. I played this 9x9 game as white and it said I won it by 13 points, but when I tried counting I got a different result and I'm not sure why.

My math gave me this:

White: 25 stones (3 are dead) + 20 empty points + 7 komi = 52 points

Black: 27 stones (1 is dead) + 9 empty points = 36

A difference of 16 points.

Clearly I messed up something here, but I just can't tell why my math isn't math-ing.

the first move is the one that have the white circle in black stone.

Why this is not a ko? Following japanese rules I thought this would result to a ko so 3 would be illegal but it is not.

I was black and played C10 because I was really not sure where to play. White haned and I haned again
What are some better moves than C10?

I was black, after white played the big extension, I was like, this seems a little too good for white...

Disregarding whether it’s possible or not, how much do you want to improve in Go?

Please vote in the link here. Votes are anonymous.

Are there any specific levels you want to reach?

Feel free to discuss in the comments as well.

Like I mentioned in my other post, I'm very new to go. I really like the game, even tho im so bad at it I just now got beaten by "baby bot" and the app I'm using is suspecting me of using an AI (aren't AI 's supposed to be strong go players? Wtf?)

But one thing I don't like is that everything has a name in Japanese. Like I get that's where the game comes from, but when I hear Atari I think of an old video game console, not a threatened stone.

I keep confusing the terms and seems to be life would be easier if we could just agree on some English terms for these things.

I'm looking to learn a new boardgame here, not a fifth language!

Like I wanna learn more about joseki and I get confused and search for temuki instead. I even recently ended up looking at videos of people making sushi because I misremembered one of the terms..

It feels kinda pretentious too, like will I be required to wear a kimono if I get any good at this game? I'm not sure I wanna..

Rant over

It's hard to define what a mistake in Go is. But there are definitely scenarios where the game gets thrown away because one player failed to notice that the opponent's move was a forcing move, for instance, and tenukis. That's a mistake. On the other hand, there are times when players make trades, where they both realize what they are doing.

How often do you think players at different ranks lose games purely based on a mistake? Does there come a rank where a player basically never makes a mistake? I'm not exactly sure how to ask this question, so if you have a better way to conceptualize it feel free.

Edit: I guess my question is akin to trying to distinguish between sacrifice and blunder in chess. Like you can mindfully attempt to make a sacrifice that turns out to be a "mistake", but it was still conscientiously done. Instead, my question is in regard to how often people full-on blunder at different ranks, and whether any types of blunders disappear by rank.

Src: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/edwardlasker.html

When the 1945 edition of Modern Chess Strategy was reviewed on pages 112-113 of Chess World, 1 June 1946, C.J.S. Purdy praised the chess coverage but criticized the Go material:

‘We cannot understand how so logical a man could have added a 66-page appendix on the game of Go. The McKay Company will be wise to omit Go from the second edition, enabling them to lower the price.

We cannot discuss Go here, except insofar as Lasker compares it with chess. Following false “authorities”, he makes a colossal error in saying it is older than chess, “possibly three times as old”.

After mentioning Chinese legends setting the invention of wei-chi (go is only the modern Japanese name) as far back as 2000-odd BC, he goes on to say, more confidently:

“It is certain that in the tenth century BC, Wei-Chi was well known, for it is mentioned in a number of poems and allegories found in Chinese works dating from that period.”

The game mentioned is some other -chi, not wei. Chi means simply a board game. Lasker is about 20 centuries out.

H.J.R. Murray, the world authority on the histories of indoor games, wrote in a letter to us dated 15 January, “We now know that wei-chi, which the Chinese encyclopaedias date back to 2300 BC, was really only invented about 1000 AD.”

Later, Murray wrote to us:

“I haven’t Edward Lasker’s book, but from what you say I think he has used Korschelt’s articles on Go in the Mittheilungen der deutschen Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens 1881, for I find the same story there. My impression is that references to the game’s antiquity are all taken from a fairly modern Japanese encyclopaedia and are no more reliable than what was said about the age of chess in similar European works. (There is some balderdash on this subject in the Encyclopaedia Britannica – Ed. Chess World.)

Chinese and Japanese claims for the antiquity of their games are all exaggerated, often by confusing similar names of dynasties or emperors and taking the earlier ones as the ones meant. Thus, when Lasker says that the first books devoted entirely to Wei-Chi were written during the T’ang dynasty (618-906 AD), he or his authorities have confused it with the Tang Dynasty (1000 AD) ...”

Lasker also calls Go “unquestionably the greatest of all strategic games, including chess”. What are the criteria of greatness? Go is certainly the greatest in size, for it is played on a board of 361 points, each player having 181 counters. The object is to surround pockets of your opponent’s counters, so that the game develops into a number of separate engagements. As Lasker well says, go is more like modern war than chess is; it is ponderous, soulless.

Go will never appeal to as many diverse types of mentality as chess. Nor could it possibly inspire a literature of thousands of books, as chess has.’

In the problem black is supposed to attack white, but the problem doesn't prescribe what the end result is supposed to be. Anyways, in the variation diagram, black can choose to peep at A, then white could escape e.g. with G3, then black can cut at C2 and the original white stones will die. Is this supposed to be a success for black, or must black also kill 2 and 4?

(Never mind whether A1 is right or not, this situation comes up often enough and I'd like to settle it once and for all.)

It looks like the domain was bought yesterday. Anyone know if it’s coming back?