https://senseis.xmp.net/?PassFight This seems problematic since it implies that passes are the only way to end a game by count. Pass-fights occur because there is no counting phase, not because there are no passes. What I mean by no-pass go is that the game ends by agreement. For some reason my brain is able to understand this now: Ultimate Go uses prisoner return which seems more elegant than pass stones, and Ultimate Go's excellently an axiomatic structuring of the ruleset letting most other concepts emerge organically, which to me also renders the other rulesets obsolete.

I just meant that the traditional Japanese rules are elegant because they don't fuss with complexities/rigor in the rules, don't require tedious, extraneous scoring activity, but also demand understanding of life and death. It all seems more in line with being an art.

The "modern" (1940s) Japanse concerns over whether the game can end with a ko seem to lose sight of the art. Just let the game end with no result or recognize territory scoring as a shortcut of area scoring where there is no need to resolve a ko and lose a point.

Meanwhile stone scoring is simple because it has the fewest rules. Just place stones and count them. Scoring directly corresponds to game play and there are no catches.

My main thought is that rules should be as simple as possible and gameplay shouldn't suffer because of scoring.

By the way, in a tsumego book I have they explicitly state that a player cannot pass -- it everything easier.

I take that point, and that's good for pros, but what about beginners? Ideally a ruleset would be both foolproof without sacrificiing artistic merit, just like international pro tournaments should get together (which is why the lack of international tournaments based in Japan by Japanese sponsors is the single biggest tragedy in top-level, professional go worse than losing either all other international tournaments or losing all Japanese tournaments. Also, each country and even pro organisation has it's own style of structuring and conducting tournament, so the cultural or intangible heritage and loss of diversity is one of the most major sins be it biodiversity or tournament diversity. To make it obvious, even in the event of a universal, olympic ruleset being devised everysingle go player without exception would probably support every international tournament sticking to the ruleset of it's country, or in the case of Ing, company). I guess in that sense you are right; a combination of Ultimate Go rule and Lentear Rules if Yoave doesn't mind (Ultimate Lentear Rulesss???) would be better considering artisry.



I agree



'Just placing stones and counting them' is usually more tedious than territory counting due to the sheer number of stones, even if you only count for one side (which in itself seems not so artistic). Which means that if you can change territory scoring like in AGA rules it automatically makes territory scoring superior. In addition, there's hardly anything elegant or artistic about the free tiere that may occur in area scoring. And thirdly, in area scoring there's the added inelegance. In territory scoring you can just put 7 black stones at the beginning of the

That's why only when there are 3 or more players is area scoring better because there is no need for komi, free tiere is not so much of an issue and when there are more than 2 players and in four-player go each person only has to count about 90 stones (unless they're untrusting of any of the other players, haha), so in this sense you are right, although I should add multiplayer go doesn't just make area scoring better, it makes 'play until you have no legal moves left' better too which is the simplest and most elegant ruleset of all, so group-tax area scoring does indeed seem best for more than two players.

But when you have 1-Lots of stones 2-Free teire 3-Komi added on externally, which are created when there are only two players, then area scoring is no longer elegant. Territory scoring with passes doesn't have these issues, but it's only elegant and artistic if you're a pro, haha. So one has to remove passes and end games by agreement, and then territory scoring can work.

1-If a stone has been placed on the board as many or more times than the number of points on the board, the game is a draw. So you can have a normal ko rule with no need for superko or situational superko.
2-Self-capture allowed if your opponent doesn't capture your stones next turn.
3-Territory scoring, put seven black stones as prisoners in white's lid at the beginning of the game.
4-No passes, game ends by agreement. One player can however cease to play any more moves until the game ends by agreement.

These rules do not seem less elegant, more complex, more tedious or less artistic than either Chinese or Japanese rules at any time. Especially the self-capture rule, which cannot even be categorised by most tables as they often either have 'suicide allowed or not allowed' and don't even consider that an in-between rule is possible.

Now a komi of exactly 7 seems correct for 13x13 go. For 19x19 go, a fractional value may be removed from white's score, although what this fraction is is important because territory points carry over in leagues and multi-game matches, with a maximum of 7 for winning by 7 or more or by resignation or timeout, and rating systems will give you for each game the points you carry over over 7, no pun intended, hehe. Actually I now prefer to skip boards smaller than 13x13 and just teach beginners directly from 13x13, and only talk about endgame and life&death, not faff about fuseki or set-patterns.

I just realised for territory scoring you can instead say, 'play until you can only self atari or self capture, after which you must cease playing while the opponent plays their stones from your prisoners lid instead of their bowl. When both players have only either self-stari or self-capture moves left, the player with less prisoners wins (after adding a fractional white prisoner).

For more than two players:
1-If a stone has been placed on the board as many or more times than the number of points on the board, the game is a draw. So you can have a normal ko rule with no need for superko or situational superko.
2-A group must have more than half of it's liberties removed by stones of the same colour to be captured.
3-Self-atari or self-capture are allowed unless the only moves you can play are those two types of move. The first-placed player is the last to have legal moves on the board!

Sorry for the repetition .

In the original ruleset, players couldn't pass, but could instead choose what I now call 'halting', essesntially from then on they must pass every turn until the other player decides to count the game. However the ruleset has been improved to removed this and the multiplayer ruleset has improved, in fact now it's again one ruleset which covers both! Taking inspiration from Ultimate Baduk to make the ruleset even more elegant.

I propose to call the game . . .

Lentears AKA Tears of Heaven (Heaventears) AKA Rainboard
1) A square grid of (13+6n)^2 orthogonally connected locations exist upon which lenses of different colours can be dropped or cried unto or rained. Each colour starts the bout with free cries equal to 360 divided by the number of colour.
2) Once on a location and only if their colour is next to be cried, lenses can only move by switching position with other orthogonally adjacent lenses on the same working team any number of times, with a working team being lenses of all colours except the colour of the next lens to be cried.
3) If it wouldn't be possible for a lens to move to a location adjacent to a location without a lens on it even if that colour was next to cry a lens, then if either that colour of lens is the only colour upon which this applies or that colour of lens is not next to be cried, it is removed from the grid and becomes a prisoner. If a colour of lens has lenses become prisoners both before and after their colour of lens is cried with no other colour of lens cried in between, then that colour is considered to have dropped/cried/rained irresponsibly by letting their lenses become prisoners even beside their own cry, and that colour runs out of free cries.
4)The aim for each colour is to have the highest empty location score, the sum total of safe locations upon which only lenses of that colour could possibly be cried unto in one cry, minus the number of that colours lenses that are prisoners.
5) 1 Victory point is scored for each colour you have a higher empty location score than, and half a victory point is scored for those whom you share the same empty location score, and then your total number of victory points are divided by the number of opponents played. Alternatively, the implied proportion of board control between the colours is determined by the differences in their empty location score, and each player scores victory points according to the implied location score divided by 360.

I think this is elegant enough

In combat between only 2 colours, then at the start of the bout the 7 lenses of the first colour to play are prisoners and the first colour to play only has 173 cries, except in a handicap bout in which both colour start off with 180 free cries as usual but the first player uses an agreed upon number of free cries before the second colour can also start making cries. In a knockout tournament in which a clear winner must be determined, in the case of a draw players invert the playing order and then play a blitz game to determine the winner.