The virtues of Go...

Go is a board game for two players. It gets compared to chess a lot. It also gets compared to Reversi because it looks similar, but its play and strategy are completely different from both games. For a complete overview of its history and strategy, Wikipedia is as good a place as any to start.

The rules are simple:

• The pieces (called stones) are placed in consecutive turns on the grid points of the board (board size can vary from 9x9 to 19x19) and traditionally, black starts. The stone, once placed, has four adjoining open grid points (called liberties) which can be occupied either by your own or opposing stones.
• If a stone has all four of its liberties cut off by opposing stones, it is dead and removed from play by the opponent. That is to say you can "capture" your opponent's stones (or groups of stones) by completely surrounding them.
• You cannot commit suicide. that is to say you cannot place your stone on a grid point with no open liberties
• (The rule of Ko) - indefinite "mirror" moves are not allowed. One cannot repeat a move twice. If one is in this position - one has to place elsewhere on the board before returning.
• You can pass instead of playing a stone - two consecutive passes indicates the game is over.
• The game ends either when both players pass consecutively or when one of the players resigns - it is considered good etiquette not to drag an obvious loss on too long. Scoring is done by adding the number of grid points captured (territory) to the number of stones captured (prisoners).

That's it in a nut shell. Although the rules are simple, the strategy is extremely complex - professional Go players make millions a year on the tournament circuit - typically they begin their training and study of the game in preschool. For a really great introductory tutorial, I recommend "The interactive way to Go".

Players are ranked by their skill level, and their skill level is dependent on their grasp of strategical concepts of ever increasing complexity, and this in turn is dependent on the number of years spent studying and playing the game. Yep - studying AND playing. you can't progress in Go beyond a rudimentary level just by playing - you actually have to study the game as well.

The ranks are designated as either "Kyu" or "Dan". The Kyu ranks start around 30 and drop down to 1 - these are the beginner ranks (30 Kyu - absolute beginner). The Dan ranks are the master levels - they range from 1 to 9. For the record I'm at about 18 Kyu - still a beginner in terms of my grasp of strategy although I've been playing Go for almost 2 years.

Go is not an easy game to catch on to, but books and online tutorials help a lot - and of course playing helps a lot to - there is saying to the effect that one has to quickly lose his first 100 games before he can really start learning the game. There are many online Go servers where you can find many opportunities to play and learn the game: I use Pandanet and sometimes Yahoo. If you use Yahoo - understand that there are a lot of cheaters on there that don't care about the game - still it's a quick and easy way to get playing. On dedicated Go servers like Pandanet - the experience is much better. The players by and large take the game etiquette seriously and play honorably. Every game is a learning experience and risk taking is encouraged. When you get matched with someone at your skill level it is an intense and exciting experience where luck has little or nothing to do with the outcome. The only time luck plays a role is if your opponent makes a misstep and you're wily enough to recognize it and capitalize on it. You win or lose on your strategic abilities alone. Often you can find advanced players willing to spend time going over games with you to help you learn. It's a great community that I look forward to spending more time in as I get older.

Christopher Hitchens is a great writer. He's brilliant, funny, scholarly, and articulate. I've enjoyed every book of his I've read - including "God is not Great" - but I have to disagree with him on this: religion does not poison everything, no more than science poisons everything. Religion has poisoned a lot for sure, but not everything. I speak from experience.

There was a time in my life that I whole-heartedly agreed with that premise - but my years of volunteering with the Schizophrenia Society of Edmonton has opened my mind. Anyone who spends anytime volunteering in their community will know... many of those who work in the volunteer sector are religious. In fact a recent survey found that people active in their faith's are more likely to be volunteers. Over 41% of Canadians who are active in their various faiths volunteer on a weekly basis as opposed to about 23% of those who are not religious. Now, age may be a factor here - since older people tend to volunteer more than younger people, and there is almost certainly a positive correlation between age and religious fervency - nevertheless, I like to call a spade a spade.

Although I totally disregard any supernatural malarkey that goes with most religions - I need to acknowledge the positive social side of religion. Most rational religious people side step any discussions of the supernatural - they prefer to keep that private - if they are truly rational the reasons for this are obvious. But one cannot deny the positive force religion has in motivating people to get off their duffs and start thinking about the state of the world and their role in it.

Hitchens gets many things right in "God is not Great" - his best point is the fact that many rational religious people act as de facto apologists for fundamentalists when they don't speak out against creationist bullshit or theocratic regimes for fear of "disrespecting" the faithful. Never mind the fact that they're nuts; they have faith, and faith is a virtue right? Well... that is a failing. But I can't help noticing every time I do my volunteering that I'm surrounded mostly by religious people - of all faiths, not just Christians, but my fellow atheists are few and far between.

Legendary Folk Singer & Activist Pete Seeger Turns 90, Thousands Turn Out for All-Star Tribute Featuring Bruce Springsteen, Joan Baez, Bernice Johnson Reagon and Dozens More

"REPORTER: When you were writing “My Dirty Stream,” did you wonder, “Would it work?” Did you ever have doubts that things would get better on the river?

PETE SEEGER: No, I think I figured that sooner or later—I didn’t know it would happen so soon, frankly. But if the human race can keep the scientists from inventing two more foolish weapons, I think we’ve got time to solve our problems. The only question is science—scientists have a religion. They think that an infinite increase in empirical information is a good thing. Can they prove it? Of course not. It’s a religious belief. That’s science for you."

Wow, Pete Seeger thinks science is a religion. I'm really disappointed in that statement - well, he is 90. Does he really think that the blame for all the polluted rivers in America can be laid at the feet of science? What is the alternative to "an infinite increase in empirical knowledge"? Is he hoping for the day we finally give up our curious ways and just be happy with ignorance?

Honestly I don't think so - Seeger is too much of a free inquirer himself for me to believe that. Unfortunately, ill thought out comments like this, from one so respected, will give fuel to the truly ignorant that will use his words to further their own ends. The creationists et. al.

I Think I know what he meant - he meant unrestricted, unregulated, unfettered science free from any moral or ethical anchors is a bad thing. which it is of course. But anyone who thinks science is just another religion really doesn't get it. Science looks for truth based on the evidence - religion looks for evidence to support its truths. Partisan politics is a lot like that to - isn't it Pete.