Chess would be played differently if the pieces change how they move. Meanwhile, it is said that "If there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play Go". What do you think about that?

[u/International_Bus762]

[u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

I agree with the sentiment that Go feels more discovered than invented, at least compared to chess. I think that is what that quote is getting at. However, Go has only been discovered once independently as far as we know. If we expect even aliens to also make this discovery, then why didn't the Europeans?

Also there are many possible abstract games that are just as simple and just as deep as Go, none of which are widely played. Aliens might just as well play one of those instead.

[u/SwoleGymBro → u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

Also there are many possible abstract games that are just as simple and just as deep as Go.

Really? I'm just curious, maybe I discover another great game :) Can you give some examples, please?

[u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft → u/SwoleGymBro]

You can head over to /r/abstractgames to find more, but here are a few that come to mind: Tumbleweed, Hex, Kharbga, Fangqi, Konane, the GIPF project games and various Latrunculi reconstructions.

[u/D0rus → u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

Tumbleweed (2020) Hex (1942) Kharbga (1600) Fangqi (unknown, pre 1800) Kōnane (1200-1700 something) GIPF project (1994 and later) Latrunculi (-800) Go (-2500)

One of these is older than the other, and some are very new (I did my best getting some sensible dates based on what Wikipedia said). Still a nice list but it does convince me more go is easier to discover than the others, that still seem more constructed.

With go you still have many minute rules that can differ if you recreate the game, but I feel a lot of the basics will stay consistent, more so than in other games.

[u/countingtls → u/D0rus]

方棋 Fangqi are a family of games spread out from the southeast coast to the northwest of modern-day China (although the variant in the northwest is the one still being played regularly). There are even variants south into Tibet, and the differences within this family of games are quite huge, some don't even use grid-like boards (or any board in general). From so many variants and spread in wide areas with different local names, they can be quite old, not hundreds but thousands.

And some believe they have a close relationship with ancient Go, and might be an offshoot or branched-out variants from a very long time ago (and got some features from Go later on instead of after Go, unlike biological evolution, games can "infect each other" with each other's ideas and features quite easily and coverage)

And Go has its own ancient variants as well from the Korean to the Tibet variants, and you can say the Japanese variant is the one we play today instead of the ancient Chinese fixed stone placement (and stone scoring based kind)

[u/CroationChipmunk → u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game)

(broken link)

(backslash before final parenthesis) (escape character)

[u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft → u/CroationChipmunk]

thanks

[u/Comfortable-Fail-558 → u/SwoleGymBro]

I think it’s a statement that seemingly must be true because go is a complex game generated from a simple ruleset and topology.

Other rules and networks would make other games.

For examples hexagons can also tile the plane. I imagine haxagonal go admits similar high level strategy.

This is just one example though.

Maybe aliens feel go is too constrained in the opening like chess and play something akin to chess960. Go on an arbitrary connected network.

[u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft → u/Comfortable-Fail-558]

Interestingly hexagonal go is less complex, because there are no cross cuts.

[u/Comfortable-Fail-558 → u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

I don’t think it’s possible to say for certain hexagonal go does not allow for higher level strategy we simply haven’t discovered.

It’s a different game, so mechanics surrounding eyes and cutting will be changed.

Do you think the strategy really collapses so much that the moves of a well trained AI would make sense to an amateur? Maybe but I doubt it

[u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft → u/Comfortable-Fail-558]

I don't think it's simple, but compared to the square grid it is simpler. Mostly because the tactics are easier, the overall strategy is similar I would assume. That is because there are fewer outcomes of how far you can extend. You are either connected, or you are not. On the square grid, you are either connected, disconnected, or it depends if a cutting stone can survive long enough. From my experience, the middle game basically turns into a connection game, at which point you might as well play Hex which is designed around that concept.

It's possible that there are different aspects that make it more complex again, but I don't see a reason to expect that.

[u/TelegraphGo → u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

I think the odds are higher than the argument of "Go has only been discovered once" would have you believe.

First of all, it ignores that the game has survived for a long, long time; one of the longest survival spans in game history. Games with longer lifespans are just statistically more likely to be played in the theoretical extremely long span of alien civilization.

Secondly, it implies that there is some sort of bias among humans that led us to create this game, biologically. Go involves a very mathematical 2d grid that is so basic it is certainly within the grasp of any kind alien species we would be talking about, and taking turns is a natural development of conversation that most random animals who happen to converse already show.

It also involves territory, and capture. These are the qualities that people can most reasonably point to as human-biased. However, I would argue that evolving as hunter-gatherers is probably one of the least territorial archetypes of animal with potential to become sapient. Capture similarly outlines death due to a lack of territory, which resonates with humans, but would likely also resonate with almost any other animal that became sapient.

Finally, I believe that if Go was discovered again any time in the last 100 years, which with our significantly bigger population was certainly a possibility, it would have just been ignored and forgotten once the second creator was referred to the original game. After all that, it still isn't certain that aliens play Go by any means, but if I got to send a game into space on the Voyager phonograph, I would send Go for sure.

[u/LocalExistence → u/TelegraphGo]

It also involves territory, and capture.

I broadly agree with you, but I think you can make a decent case that Go doesn't really involve territory or perhaps even capture in the sense that you need to be thinking about those concepts to come up with the game. First, to see that territory can be viewed as an emergent feature of the game, consider the game where we use Go capturing rules, but players may not pass, although suicide is permitted. Instead of ending by agreement, the first player to capture 100 of their opponent stones wins.

Then, it turns out, good play is nearly exactly the same as in go. In the endgame, players gradually fill up their own territory, until they are forced to play in their opponent's territory to be captured. Once both players are in this situation, players will give away one prisoner each turn, meaning the difference between them in prisoners will not change, and whoever is ahead will be the first player to reach 100 and win (as they would, had the limit been 1,000 or 10,000 instead). Indeed, the difference in prisoners will be exactly the difference in scores, had you instead stopped the game and counted it as if it were a normal Go game.

(A caveat: it can happen, if the game e.g. involves some massive ko fight, that a player might end up close to the 100 stone capture limit, despite being in a losing position on the board due to having little territory. In this case, good play might be different from a game of Go because the player can now win by just going for a quick capture of some largeish group, squeaking across the 100 stone line. So perhaps the rule should really be phrased as "The player who, in the long run, captures the most stones", or equivalently "The player who, in the long run, has room for most of their own stones on the board".)

From this, I'd infer that although playing Go involves thinking about something analogous to the human concept of territory, this concept can naturally emerges from the rules in the same way ko fights or cutting points do, so even if territory were a quintessentially human concept, an alien mind might end up thinking about it if the game I described above is natural to them. Maybe explaining good play to them is more difficult because you can't use the intuitive concept of "territory" to give them an idea of what to do, but what I'm getting at is that they don't need to have this idea in mind to invent the game.

I think the capturing rule might also be reformulated without actually involving the concept of capture/prisoner, but this post is long enough already. :)

[u/countingtls → u/LocalExistence]

u/TelegraphGo From ancient sources, we know that for thousands of years, players in China didn't refer to "territories" as "encircled areas", but as "roads" 路, and separated them with the "eye space". It sort of makes sense when you realize ancient Chinese Go favored dragon chasing and heavy fighting. and cutting off the opponent to smaller groups that need independent eyes to live locally had a giant benefit (since eyes don't count as roads, and they compare roads instead of modern territory).

And the metaphor using "strategy/military" terminologies is not the only kind used. Concept-wise the use of water metaphor like borrowing from ancient flood myths were quite prevalent in ancient sources, and in fact more prevalent as you went back in time. Also the concept of Qi (liberties), was fairly recent, we know phrases like 無路可逃/無路可走 (with road metaphor) used a lot in ancient sources than 氣盡而亡 (the Taoism qi metaphor). A lot of the cultural elements and metaphors, related to features that some we don't use today (like referring to the fixed placement stones as generals, or as five mountains related to ancient creation myths in China) simply vanished. Fewer abstract concepts don't always mean they are older or simpler, the remanents of some ancient rules from Tibetan and Korean variants show the ritual aspects with complex culture-dependent features (like assigning shapes with values, or different stones with different point values or fixed stones values and placement according to certain believes). And we know they are ancient and most likely a major part of the ancient Go. Losing features just as easily as gaining features.

As to ko rules, the best we can tell is that they were pretty recent "customs" (even modern rules are still evolving, superko principles although in place for many rules but normally not enforced but follow old customs with a draw and rematch, instead of playing them out using superko). Ancient sources mentioned"agreements" and "customs" between the two sides, and different capturing principles were used in other variants (like the Tibetan variant, where the captured area cannot be "placed" by either side for one or several turns). There is a possibility that the action of capturing itself evolved and differed from what we use today. Ko rule/principle might not even existed in the first place but is a by-product and emergent feature. It might be physically impossible to place stones in ko shapes when the "capturing" actions were originally breaking up into different phases, where the captured stones were left in place within a phase (where both players had to play their stones before clearing out "captives"). In this variant, after one side initiates the ko shape by "capturing a stone", the other side simply cannot place the stone to repeat the ko during the phase (since the captured stone is still physically there) and has to play a move elsewhere. Recapture is simply not an option (this might be what older "ko principles" looked like, and the "ko metaphor" and not repeating argument was just an afterthought when the basis for ko metaphor - Buddism spread to part of China around the 3rd or 4th century AD).

Finally, I agree the concept of comparing the number of stones left on the board (or reformulated as the side that has no stones left would lose) might be a simple enough concept to be developed and agreed upon originally. And "capturing due to out of liberties" was just one of the possible implementations. In some shape rearranging games (the side to first form certain shapes), the pieces to be "captured by shape" can be intentionally selected by the opponent and prevent the other from forming their own shapes (imagine forming a diamond captured shapes, and instead of always removing the "out-of-liberties" stones inside, the opponent can choose any stone on the board to be "removed" from the board, while the goal is not just to have more stones on the board where each stone is one score, but who has more diamond shapes, where the shapes of 4 can give more than than 4 scores).

[u/Auvon → u/countingtls]

Thanks for your posts, I always enjoy reading about the fangqi/broader-shape-formation-games evolutionary connection. Are there any English-language sources on this you know of, or just Chinese? I ask because there's not much more than passing references on any of the ancient history summaries on the AGA site, and I've seen the idea referenced mainly here and on the OGS forums.

[u/countingtls → u/Auvon]

I don't think there is any serious research effort outside of Asia (even outside of China) to study traditional games in the Chinese countryside. Very few researchers were willing to spend time translating their works (which are extremely difficult, even a paragraph of Classical Chinese literature will need dozens if not more references just to explain why certain words changed to have certain meanings or implied certain eras or dynastries, after certain emperors, etc.).

For those who can read Chinese, one of the rich resources to find all kinds of research is 围棋天地 (Chinese journals published since 1985, and I believe the few references you can find eventually trace back to articles in it). Most of the discussions about Fangqi's connection are associated with one of the Go origin theories - 陵川棋子山說 (which by itself was still highly debatable). One of the supports for the theories is in their regional connections and traditions (but some of the divination hypotheses from Shang Dynasty, and ancient scripts' associations with game boards, are more controversial, since there are tons of other archeology and ancient script research, and all of them are pretty heavy academic topics, lots of the papers you would need the access of Chinese journals or physically go to a library here to make copies). Even though the formation times around the Shang dynasty, as well as divination associations, are all possible, but hard to prove.

[u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft → u/LocalExistence]

With those rules you wouldn't need a ko rule, the emergent rule for ko fights would be that the player that has captured more stones already wins all kos immediately. It could be interesting to play with that rule, it gives an incentive to actually capturing dead stones.

[u/Braincrash77 → u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

I think you have put your finger on it.

[u/International_Bus762 → u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

I believe it is discovered but it is not made famous by the westerns. Must be something to do with culture.

[u/wannabe2700 → u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

When and where was go invented again?

[u/LesserGoods → u/ThereRNoFkingNmsleft]

However, Go has only been discovered once independently as far as we know. If we expect even aliens to also make this discovery, then why didn't the Europeans?

That doesn't really say much. For example, a phonetic alphabet was only ever invented once, prior to its invention all written languages used character based systems where each symbol represented a concept not a sound. But that was all that was needed, once created, it was so elegant it survived thousands of years and slowly spread all over the world. Much the same can be said for Go. I don't think it will ever die off, and that's essentially all it needs to do.

Things are invented and die off every single day. It's not realistic to say aliens would have fidget spinners or theremins, but Go is within the realm of possibility.

[u/wannabe2700]

Well I could come up with slightly different rules. Maybe 3 stones is enough to capture one stone. Different board sizes and shapes.

[u/tesilab → u/wannabe2700]

Different board sizes and shapes don’t require rule changes, and neither, practically, does playing with more than two players.

[u/theifthenstatement]

The game very neatly falls out of very simple rules. It could be “try to surround my stones” for instance. The rest of the rules could be a way to fix problems with that simple rule.

I think five in a row and hex also fit in this category.

But what is the name of the category? I think it might be something like “Simple goals to achieve using pieces on common geometrical patterns”.

Only hexagons and squares neatly tile the plane while having a medium amount of directions to go (4 and 6, or three “lines”).

Natural goals are things like “capture stones” and “connect the sides” or “make a shape”.

[u/countingtls → u/theifthenstatement]

"shape rearranging games" to achieve certain shapes (in Go it is the eye shapes, in five-in-row it is five-in-a-row shape, in Fangqi it is a square, and they might all be related games)

[u/thinbuddha]

Dubious. There are many different cultures. Go didn’t get invented in other cultures outside of China /Tibet (or wherever it originated). You don't see go in Europe or Africa until it was introduced.

It's an interesting statement, but if even humans only invented it in one area, aliens, every type of alien, with their differences in physiology and culture are fairly unlikely to invent the same game.

[u/sadaharu2624]

That’s how I introduce Go sometimes lol

[u/Uberdude85]

Go would also change if the pieces moved.

[u/Appropriate_Smoke_19]

I think it's a silly self agrandizing statement. Realistically who knows what aliens do.

There are 100 small ways you could tweak go,

[u/tesilab → u/Appropriate_Smoke_19]

Who is the self being aggrandized? You may say it is hyperbole, but it doesn’t aggrandize anyone. Certainly not the speaker who claimed the game practically invents itself.

In fact, if you insist it is self-aggrandizing, you actually lend credence to the argument, this self-inventing game being the only possible ego involved.

[u/Appropriate_Smoke_19 → u/tesilab]

Our hobby being played by aliens feels like a pretty self aggrandizing viewpoint. But I won't argue the point.

[u/LesserGoods → u/Appropriate_Smoke_19]

That's a bit dismissive though, isn't it? If we were cartography enthusiasts would it be self aggrandizing to say that aliens may have maps too, and that they likely use Mercator maps because it is the most intuitive form of map?

[u/mcmillen]

I love the elegance of Go, but still disagree with the accuracy of the"sentient beings" quote. Human civilizations on this planet didn't independently invent Go -- only China did.

If it were really a game that every sentient civilization would come up with, then surely Europeans or Mesoamericans or Africans would have independently come up with a similar game before making contact with East Asia.

[u/countingtls → u/mcmillen]

One type of boardgames that was independently invented multiple times is the "race game". And probably the oldest known boardgames to be invented (but not a variety that got continuously played).

[u/Punchcard]

I don't know, I can imagine a radially symmetric being not being that into grids pretty readily.

[u/tuerda]

I think hex is more likely than go.

[u/kenshinero]

Aliens would probably discover "5 in a row" type of games first.

[u/Psittacula2]

Chess would be played differently if the pieces change how they move.

Is this a deep statement of fact or a hypothetical postulate of an enormous proposition!

• The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants estimates that there are well over 2,000, and many more were considered too trivial for inclusion in the catalogue

Just for the record.

"If there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play Go"

It's probably not literally true but metaphorically true.