[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/ga/ - Games

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

We will be performing scheduled maintenance from 2-3am UTC, May 30th. The board will be read only during this time.


File: 1625524546653-0.jpg ( 190.53 KB , 1024x992 , GO.JPG )

 No.10675

Does anyone on /leftypol/ play Go? I am interested in learning how to play it, but I am not sure where to start. That said, I think I will start by reading "Learn How to Play Go" by Janice Kim (Reddit recommended it.). I attached it here to this thread for anyone interested.

Also, a quote from Deleuze, among other things of course, is what really piqued my interest in Go. I'll reproduce it here:

>“Let us take a limited example and compare the war machine and the state apparatus in the context of the theory of games. Let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of game pieces, the relations between the pieces and the space involved. Chess is a game of the State, or of the court: the emperor of China played it. Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop. Each is like a subject of the statement endowed with relative power, and these relative powers combine in a subject of enunciation, that is, the chess player or the game’s form of interiority. Go pieces, I contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units, and have only an anonymous, collective, or third-person function: “It” makes a move. “It” could be a man, a woman, a louse, an elephant. Go pieces are elements of a nonsubjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones. Thus the relations are very different in the two cases.


>Within their milieu of interiority, chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversary’s pieces: their functioning is structural. One the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellations, according to which it fulfills functions of insertion or situation, such as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot (or can do so diachronically only). Chess is indeed a war, but an institutionalized, regulated, coded war with a front, a rear, battles. But what is proper to Go is war without battle lines, with neither confrontation nor retreat, without battles even: pure strategy, whereas chess is a semiology. Finally, the space is not at all the same: in chess, it is a question of arranging a closed space for oneself, thus going from one point to another, of occupying the maximum number of squares with the minimum number of pieces. In Go, it is a question of arraying oneself in an open space, of holding space, of maintaining the possibility of springing up at any point: the movement is not from one point to another, but becomes perpetual, without aim or destination, without departure or arrival. The “smooth” space of Go, as against the “striated” space of chess. The nomos of Go against the State of chess, nomos against polis. The difference is that chess codes and decodes space, whereas Go proceeds altogether differently, territorializing and deterritorializing it (make the outside a territory in space; consolidate that territory by the construction of a second, adjacent territory; deterritorialize the enemy by shattering his territory from within; deterritorialize oneself by renouncing, by going elsewhere…) Another justice, another movement, another space-time.”
>>

 No.10677

>a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop.
When a pawn reaches the other end of the board, the pawn transforms into another piece.
>>

 No.10681

It's all about territory control, which was hard for me to figure out. Learning some simple "structures" helped me at least understand what the pros are doing.
It's pretty expensive to play in person too
>>

 No.10683

>>10681
>expensive
how so?
>>

 No.10689

There are good beginner resources here I think in the puzzle section.
https://online-go.com/
I also suggest playing games on that site as that's where a lot of English speakers play.
>>

 No.10707

>>10689
thanks, I made an account there.

There is a local Go club in my city, I may check them out. Seems to be full of Asian boomers, though.
>>

 No.10760

How is your learning going
Lost your first hundred games yet?
>>

 No.10762

>>10760
I've been reading that GO book I posted and doing some tactics on that website 89 posted. Haven't started a game yet, but I might do so soon.
>>

 No.10764

>>10683
Unlike a chess board, a simple grid on a flat piece of wood won't do.
Depending on how big of a board you play on, you may need a whole lot of stones, which also adds to the cost.

That said, there isn't much to game, so it may be a good workshop project.

Unique IPs: 7

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome