4 ms·

The ultimate intuitively simple and intellectually challenging game is Go. Go's rules are far simpler than Arimaa's, and it's just as challenging for computers.

The ultimate intuitively simple and intellectually challenging game is Go. Go's rules are far simpler than Arimaa's, and it's just as challenging for computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_and_mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_and_mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go losethos mentioned this too, although he is hellbanned. His point was that Go's advantage is it engages the image-recognition abilities of our brains.

wslh 13y ago
There is another one that is more simple to Arimaa and is also played in a 8x8 board called "Game of Amazons": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Amazons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Amazons
TomAnthony 13y ago
I'd disagree about this, because whilst the rules of Go are indeed simple to learn, developing a heuristic for analysing a position on the board is not. With Go you'd not expect a new player to be able to beat a computer player right away, whereas with Arimaa that is entirely possible. We aren't there yet, but Go is starting to give way to Monte-Carlo Tree Search approaches; I don't believe that Arimaa playing computers are at the same level yet. However, Go is certainly 'cleaner' and was not artificially constructed to intentionally be difficult for computers.
ig1 13y ago
The scoring rules for Go are much more complex. I've seen plenty of cases where novices have struggled with end-game scoring, especially under Japanese rules.
- rotten 13y ago
  This is why I gave up trying to play Go. I could never figure out why I lost or how the scoring worked.
  - dfan 13y ago
    The worst thing about Go is that the scoring rules that are taught to everyone (the Japanese ones) don't make any sense unless you already understand the game well, so there's a terrible bootstrap problem. Everyone should be taught Go with Chinese or Tromp-Taylor scoring. (Note that all these rulesets give basically the same results for almost all games; it's just some edge cases that end up differing.)
  - zokier 13y ago
    Out of curiosity, did you try to learn with a tutor/mentor, or by yourself?
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  So use Tromp-Taylor rules. "A player's score is the number of points of her color, plus the number of empty points that reach only her color." Sorry Japan, but Japanese Go rules are a mess and need to be retired.
  - ig1 13y ago
    That's fine unless you want to compete in a tournament that use Japanese rules, or Chinese rules, or AGA rules, etc. Simplified rule sets are fine (as is playing on a 9x9 board), but they don't represent Go as it's generally played.
    - lambda 13y ago
      Chinese and AGA scoring rules are essentially the same as Tromp-Taylor, just not expressed quite as concisely. AGA rules actually have a neat hack which makes it so using either area or territory scoring gives you the same result (by making you give an opponent a stone as a capture every time you pass). The reason Japanese counting is so complex is that there are situations where it would hurt you to play it out in order to determine life or death, as you would need to fill in your own territory, so they've developed a whole bunch of special cases to determine life or death for disputed groups without playing it out. Area scoring eliminates this problem, as does the AGA rule of giving your opponent an extra capture every time you pass. Really, if people are having trouble with scoring, just teach them area scoring and tell them to play it out until they can score the game unambiguously.
  - zokier 13y ago
    I'm very novice Go player, but I've only ever played with Japanese rules. Could you (and ig1) explain what's so wrong with them? I don't remember ever thinking that the score counting would be somehow complex or unintuitive.
    - lambda 13y ago
      Under Japanese (and Korean) rules, there occur situation in the end game in which it may be difficult to determine whether a particular group is alive or dead, but the player who would need to play in order to play it out and determine for certain may not want to do so as doing so would fill in their own territory, reducing their score. Japanese rules have a variety of special cases to deal with this problem, but most beginners don't know them, and many beginners may not know exactly when to stop (as they are unsure if a group is safe or not), and so may wind up reducing their score in the endgame just because they are trying to make sure a group is safe. Under area scoring rules (Chinese, Tromp-Taylor, AGA, New Zealand, Ing, etc), you count the sum of your territory and your stones on the board, avoiding this problem. AGA has a hack that makes both scoring methods work the same; whenever you pass, you give your opponent an extra prisoner. Here's an overview of the different rulesets: http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html

wslh 13y ago

There is another one that is more simple to Arimaa and is also played in a 8x8 board called "Game of Amazons": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Amazons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Amazons

TomAnthony 13y ago

I'd disagree about this, because whilst the rules of Go are indeed simple to learn, developing a heuristic for analysing a position on the board is not. With Go you'd not expect a new player to be able to beat a computer player right away, whereas with Arimaa that is entirely possible. We aren't there yet, but Go is starting to give way to Monte-Carlo Tree Search approaches; I don't believe that Arimaa playing computers are at the same level yet. However, Go is certainly 'cleaner' and was not artificially constructed to intentionally be difficult for computers.

ig1 13y ago

The scoring rules for Go are much more complex. I've seen plenty of cases where novices have struggled with end-game scoring, especially under Japanese rules.

rotten 13y ago
This is why I gave up trying to play Go. I could never figure out why I lost or how the scoring worked.
- dfan 13y ago
  The worst thing about Go is that the scoring rules that are taught to everyone (the Japanese ones) don't make any sense unless you already understand the game well, so there's a terrible bootstrap problem. Everyone should be taught Go with Chinese or Tromp-Taylor scoring. (Note that all these rulesets give basically the same results for almost all games; it's just some edge cases that end up differing.)
- zokier 13y ago
  Out of curiosity, did you try to learn with a tutor/mentor, or by yourself?
JulianMorrison 13y ago
So use Tromp-Taylor rules. "A player's score is the number of points of her color, plus the number of empty points that reach only her color." Sorry Japan, but Japanese Go rules are a mess and need to be retired.
- ig1 13y ago
  That's fine unless you want to compete in a tournament that use Japanese rules, or Chinese rules, or AGA rules, etc. Simplified rule sets are fine (as is playing on a 9x9 board), but they don't represent Go as it's generally played.
  - lambda 13y ago
    Chinese and AGA scoring rules are essentially the same as Tromp-Taylor, just not expressed quite as concisely. AGA rules actually have a neat hack which makes it so using either area or territory scoring gives you the same result (by making you give an opponent a stone as a capture every time you pass). The reason Japanese counting is so complex is that there are situations where it would hurt you to play it out in order to determine life or death, as you would need to fill in your own territory, so they've developed a whole bunch of special cases to determine life or death for disputed groups without playing it out. Area scoring eliminates this problem, as does the AGA rule of giving your opponent an extra capture every time you pass. Really, if people are having trouble with scoring, just teach them area scoring and tell them to play it out until they can score the game unambiguously.
- zokier 13y ago
  I'm very novice Go player, but I've only ever played with Japanese rules. Could you (and ig1) explain what's so wrong with them? I don't remember ever thinking that the score counting would be somehow complex or unintuitive.
  - lambda 13y ago
    Under Japanese (and Korean) rules, there occur situation in the end game in which it may be difficult to determine whether a particular group is alive or dead, but the player who would need to play in order to play it out and determine for certain may not want to do so as doing so would fill in their own territory, reducing their score. Japanese rules have a variety of special cases to deal with this problem, but most beginners don't know them, and many beginners may not know exactly when to stop (as they are unsure if a group is safe or not), and so may wind up reducing their score in the endgame just because they are trying to make sure a group is safe. Under area scoring rules (Chinese, Tromp-Taylor, AGA, New Zealand, Ing, etc), you count the sum of your territory and your stones on the board, avoiding this problem. AGA has a hack that makes both scoring methods work the same; whenever you pass, you give your opponent an extra prisoner. Here's an overview of the different rulesets: http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html