John Fairbairn wrote:
It is the practical complexity of superko that is found to be unacceptable to nearly everyone.
Several aspects are involved WRT practical complexity.
1) Practical complexity of identification of repetition: it is similar for superko and void result ko rules because both require recognition of repetition of the whole board position. The latter is a bit relaxed because one need not recognise at / just before the first moment of repetition but players can be dull to recycle several times until both recognise repetition. This raises the additional question why players are supposed to take pride in being dull in a game in which they supposed to be bright.
2) Practical complexity in typical games: in almost all games (4999:5000, 19999:20000 or so), long cycles requiring superko consideration do not even occur so the practical complexity in typical games is extremely low.
3) Understanding why the practical complexity in typical games is extremely low: this requires understanding of the missing practical complexity of superko occurring in these occasional ko situations: sending-2-returning-1; double disturbing death (such as in a big nadare joseki), which, as under other typical ko rulesets such as void ko rules, provides an arbitary supply of ko threats for the dead player.
4) Practical complexity in the relatively most frequent (occurring in, say, 1:5000 or 1:20000 games) superko positions (triple ko or three kos behaving like a triple ko): there is no practical complexity because the ko fight should be exactly like a basic ko fight. There only is slight theoretical complexity, which is much less complex than your typical life and death problem of tactical reading: one must once understand why the ko fight should be exactly like a basic ko fight: due to otherwise occurring repetition, a ko threat sequence in a triple needs to end after, by choice of the ko threat player, 1, 3 or 5 successive plays in the triple ko.
5) Practical complexity in the second-most frequent (occurring in, say, 1:10000 or 1:40000 games) superko positions (quadruple, quintuple ko, moonshine life): now we are entering actual complexity in every one such shape because mindless play can be wrong; the actual move order and moment of next-move repetition matter. However, over all games, the practical complexity is extremely low because of the rarity of such shapes. In go, we take pride in the ability of thinking and in particular tactical reading. Such a rare shape with practical complexity in a game in which it occurs gives the players the chance to demonstrate their skills, which is an advantage compensating the disadvantage of the complexity of procedural handling in such a rare game.
6) Practical complexity in arcane shapes: in theory, superko strategy and tactics can become arbitrarily complex with extremely long cycles or ko fights. In practice, that is, for the sake of practical complexity, such is absolutely immaterial because such shapes (such as molasses ko) never occur (or at worst once in the entire world-wide history of go). Besides, there is the advantage that we have something to celebrate if indeed such a shape occurs.
Quote:
They can't always be sure they play the kos in the right order, especially in fast games.
They also can't always be sure to play non-ko tactics in the right order, so what? Difficult move order in non-long-ko-cycle tactics matters many times per game while difficult move order in long-ko-cycles matters once every 1:10000th or 1:40000th game, so what?
Quote:
Such mistakes have occurred in pro play.
Such mistakes in non-long-ko-cycle tactics in pro plays occur all the time, so what? Prohibit fast games?
Quote:
Then you have the problem of whether the referees can stay awake waiting for such a rarity.
They even have to stay awake for relatively much more frequent incidents, such as self-atari, retracting a move or recapture of a basic ko.
Quote:
Unlike major sports that haven't got the finances to install video replays, and no doubt they'd rather not have a digital record of picking their toenails (a la Sakata). In short, they have already decided to make life safe, sane and simple.
Wrong. That they make referee-handling simpler in 1:5000 or rarer long cycle cases is irrelevant as long as they make referee-handling more difficult in more frequent rules matters, such as not filling the last basic endgame ko.
Quote:
Japanese '89 rules are an abomination. OK, they ignore them.
They ignore parts of them but apply other parts.
Quote:
There comes a point in most things in life when it's best if common sense just takes over.
Common sense like "the simplest, shortest rule text ('a play may not repeat a position') is good enough in practice".
Quote:
And where common sense does not quite work, no problem: we just apply supercommon sense.
Like going back to the position before the start of the long cycle and continue the game from there with carefulness and, if necessary, a few minutes of extra thinking time.