chain

[sobriquet]

http://senseis.xmp.net/?Chain

Isn't it kind of essential for the concept of a 'chain' in go that
it's not just a group of stones that are all in contact with each
other but that they must also be stones that are all of the same
color?

Or would a white stone in contact with a black stone also be
considered a chain?

I think it makes more sense to think of chains as groups of
stones that are all of the same color and in contact with
each other, because in go, stones of the same color that are all
in contact with each other live and die together.

The game of go seems to revolve around the principle of such chains being
required to have at least 1 liberty.

[Mike Terry]

Post by sobriquet
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Chain
Isn't it kind of essential for the concept of a 'chain' in go that
it's not just a group of stones that are all in contact with each
other but that they must also be stones that are all of the same
color?

Yes

Post by sobriquet
Or would a white stone in contact with a black stone also be
considered a chain?

No

Post by sobriquet
I think it makes more sense to think of chains as groups of
stones that are all of the same color and in contact with
each other, because in go, stones of the same color that are all
in contact with each other live and die together.

Yes - that's exactly the intention of the definition on senseis library. It
talks of "connections" and "solid connections" between stones, and elsewhere
it says (or at least implies) that this concept only applies to stones of
the same colour. Perhaps the wording on Senseis could be improved to make
this clearer. As it stands, the "same colour" requirement within a chain is
buried away in the meaning of "connected" rather than just stated
explicitly.

Regards,
Mike.

Post by sobriquet
The game of go seems to revolve around the principle of such chains being
required to have at least 1 liberty.