hi,
maybe i can explain the games rudimentaries (dont mind the english - im
polish-austrian and not used to ..):
the goal of Go ist to obtain territory. it ends, when both players agree,
there is no move to do, which will not shorten each territory (buts thats
no random-choice of course). there are three basic rules: 1)place the
stones (they cannot be move, though removed when captured/killed). 2)rule
of freedom(s), which say that each stone (or stone-chain) has freedomes
according to the horizontal and vertical space around it, so a singe stone
somewhere in the middle of the board has a basic amount of "freedoms" of
four (up, down, left right"). when a "friendly" stone is placed on one of
this free spaces, they make chain and have a total amount of freedoms of
six, and so on. alternatly, enemy stones reduce freedoms and when theres
no on left, the stone (the chain) ist captured and taken from the board.
3) a territory lives, when its was a minimum of two free "eyes" i.e. free
seperated spaces, because by that the territory cannot run out of freedoms
with one single move from the enemy. there ist another "addon" rule,
which discribes a "ko", situation, without explaining the details its
necessary to dispend infinit regresses in capturing single stones.
so what? what is emphasized in thousand plateaus, the guerilla aspekt of
the game is that U can place stones in every place on the board (which
nota bene is a chinese metaphor for the sky), U can place it in enemy
territory as well, the only point is, to make an territory with two eyes
("living territory"). D/G mention Mao playing Go, too. its in every step
full of uncertainy, stones which seem dead or captured already, can kill
enemy territory per occasion. basically, U try to get first hand, that
means that U decide where to play on the board, and U can do so, when U do
not have to make "safety" moves somewhere else to make your territory
stable there first. sometime U have to sacrifice some stones, and so on.
in general, the situation on the whole board is much more to peel on,
than on single "micro" fights, not opposite to chess though, but there is
a bigger emphasize on formation, also because there are far more moves to
choose from.
maybe that helps a bit, please tell if U need to know more,
bye,
boryz
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Ruth Chandler wrote:
> hi Chris,
> i,ve never played it other but i think the key is value accrued in
> movement-a related example-Jake-( son) had one of those fantasy games where
> you build all the pieces and lay them out in particular territories (board
> supplied) its already got coded rules etc but he and his mates were soon
> bored with this and moved the game out of its board rules and played it
> around the house and garden-all the rules and borders changed in movent
> untill the pieces had no discernible fixed values but accrued them in
> situe-still treading on the damn things!
> ciao
> Ruth.C
>
> >>> Chris <egordan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 01/01 8:00 am >>>
> I've never playeD Go either. A friend has the game and from what I can
> gather
> it's just an open board and unmarked (although no doubt differentiated by
> colour?) pieces. Deleuze says it's pure strategy, I think. My assumption
> is
> that the aim is to surround opponents pieces, but I'm not sure that I'm not
> just
> remembering something else - that kind of game.
> I was wondering, on reading the chapter, if those little tricks that people
> do
> with coins are a different example - you can only move one or two to make a
> particular shape, or you have to make a shape by moving the coins while they
> always meet two others (something like that)- they always sound so easy, but
> take
> a bit of working out - no doubt this is a smaller scale, but it remains
> uncoded,
> in that the move is a relation in space - making several unmarked/coded
> pieces
> operate towards a goal (winning the game/ working out the puzzle-trick)???
> Where
> Chess would be more like a card trick - perhaps? The pieces in the game are
> coded????
> I'm not sure if this makes sense.
> I think the differentiation is in the coding of the tools used to play the
> game.
> I think it's interesting to note that there seems to be another game played
> among
> chess players (and poker) that becomes gestural - doesn't this work as a
> kind of
> attempt to deterritorialize - bluff the openent into not looking properly at
> the
> board - diverting attention etc.. Would this 'other' game be the body
> without
> organs of the chess game (as event)??? ( just a thought...)
>
>
> Shaun Rawolle wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > Rather a mundane question, I'm afraid, but on reading 'Nomadology: the war
> > machine' I find myself missing some basic cultural capital: what is the
> > game Go? Can someone describe the tactical and strategic axioms of the
> game?
> >
> > Bye, Shaun
> >
> > ____________________________
> >
> > Shaun Rawolle
> > Doctoral Candidate
> >
> > Graduate School of Education
> > Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
> > The University of Queensland
> >
> > Phone: 07 3365 6508
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
maybe i can explain the games rudimentaries (dont mind the english - im
polish-austrian and not used to ..):
the goal of Go ist to obtain territory. it ends, when both players agree,
there is no move to do, which will not shorten each territory (buts thats
no random-choice of course). there are three basic rules: 1)place the
stones (they cannot be move, though removed when captured/killed). 2)rule
of freedom(s), which say that each stone (or stone-chain) has freedomes
according to the horizontal and vertical space around it, so a singe stone
somewhere in the middle of the board has a basic amount of "freedoms" of
four (up, down, left right"). when a "friendly" stone is placed on one of
this free spaces, they make chain and have a total amount of freedoms of
six, and so on. alternatly, enemy stones reduce freedoms and when theres
no on left, the stone (the chain) ist captured and taken from the board.
3) a territory lives, when its was a minimum of two free "eyes" i.e. free
seperated spaces, because by that the territory cannot run out of freedoms
with one single move from the enemy. there ist another "addon" rule,
which discribes a "ko", situation, without explaining the details its
necessary to dispend infinit regresses in capturing single stones.
so what? what is emphasized in thousand plateaus, the guerilla aspekt of
the game is that U can place stones in every place on the board (which
nota bene is a chinese metaphor for the sky), U can place it in enemy
territory as well, the only point is, to make an territory with two eyes
("living territory"). D/G mention Mao playing Go, too. its in every step
full of uncertainy, stones which seem dead or captured already, can kill
enemy territory per occasion. basically, U try to get first hand, that
means that U decide where to play on the board, and U can do so, when U do
not have to make "safety" moves somewhere else to make your territory
stable there first. sometime U have to sacrifice some stones, and so on.
in general, the situation on the whole board is much more to peel on,
than on single "micro" fights, not opposite to chess though, but there is
a bigger emphasize on formation, also because there are far more moves to
choose from.
maybe that helps a bit, please tell if U need to know more,
bye,
boryz
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Ruth Chandler wrote:
> hi Chris,
> i,ve never played it other but i think the key is value accrued in
> movement-a related example-Jake-( son) had one of those fantasy games where
> you build all the pieces and lay them out in particular territories (board
> supplied) its already got coded rules etc but he and his mates were soon
> bored with this and moved the game out of its board rules and played it
> around the house and garden-all the rules and borders changed in movent
> untill the pieces had no discernible fixed values but accrued them in
> situe-still treading on the damn things!
> ciao
> Ruth.C
>
> >>> Chris <egordan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 01/01 8:00 am >>>
> I've never playeD Go either. A friend has the game and from what I can
> gather
> it's just an open board and unmarked (although no doubt differentiated by
> colour?) pieces. Deleuze says it's pure strategy, I think. My assumption
> is
> that the aim is to surround opponents pieces, but I'm not sure that I'm not
> just
> remembering something else - that kind of game.
> I was wondering, on reading the chapter, if those little tricks that people
> do
> with coins are a different example - you can only move one or two to make a
> particular shape, or you have to make a shape by moving the coins while they
> always meet two others (something like that)- they always sound so easy, but
> take
> a bit of working out - no doubt this is a smaller scale, but it remains
> uncoded,
> in that the move is a relation in space - making several unmarked/coded
> pieces
> operate towards a goal (winning the game/ working out the puzzle-trick)???
> Where
> Chess would be more like a card trick - perhaps? The pieces in the game are
> coded????
> I'm not sure if this makes sense.
> I think the differentiation is in the coding of the tools used to play the
> game.
> I think it's interesting to note that there seems to be another game played
> among
> chess players (and poker) that becomes gestural - doesn't this work as a
> kind of
> attempt to deterritorialize - bluff the openent into not looking properly at
> the
> board - diverting attention etc.. Would this 'other' game be the body
> without
> organs of the chess game (as event)??? ( just a thought...)
>
>
> Shaun Rawolle wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > Rather a mundane question, I'm afraid, but on reading 'Nomadology: the war
> > machine' I find myself missing some basic cultural capital: what is the
> > game Go? Can someone describe the tactical and strategic axioms of the
> game?
> >
> > Bye, Shaun
> >
> > ____________________________
> >
> > Shaun Rawolle
> > Doctoral Candidate
> >
> > Graduate School of Education
> > Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
> > The University of Queensland
> >
> > Phone: 07 3365 6508
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>