It has added a lot of excitement for those enjoying study of go rules theory and its application.

This and the contrary have been discussed earlier in this thread.

Yes, but only that.
Meaning, to be blunt, the rules minutiae are not big parts of the culture. People learn life and death. Opening theory. Study pro games. Play. Promote. Organise tournaments. Look at history. Suicide added a little to some rules theory.

_________________
North Lecale

After you make efforts to explain non-rules-level theory, you conclude that suicide added little to rules-level theory? Maybe you have wanted to conclude that - so far - it adds relatively little to non-rules-level theory?

No, I didn't, since placing suicide into the rules has demonstrably not had any impact on how people play the game.

_________________
North Lecale

Just a quick linguistic note: There is a difference between "added little" and "added a little". The first implies a meaning like "nothing significant", while the second implies a meaning more like "something relatively small" (i.e. "small" relative to the existing amount of rules theory, or small relative to the amount of theory added by other rules, such as e.g. various ko rules)

Occham's Razor:
is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses,
the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

I assert for a moment that William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) would have liked Go
and then he would have especially liked Go with a rule set not mentioning suicide at all (i.e. = allowed).
Appeal to authority in speculation, I know.
Nevertheless, it makes a flashy argument, and ...

... why would someone like to have rulings on individual positions?
Let creativity prevail!

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | X X O . X O O . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X . O . X X O . X . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O X . X O . X . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X O O X X O . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O O O O . O . . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . X O O O X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . . O O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , O . O . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

Vgl. »fügt wenig hinzu« vs. »fügt ein wenig hinzu« (for a corresponding German example).

I also believe that often the use of »little« does not really mean a small amount but can rather be large or have a large effect. Somewhat subtly embedded ironical understatement which, because of our mostly “subconscious” (BTW I prefer “ignored” for “subconscious”: we are educated/trained to ignore those “subconscious” things) and involuntary communication, leads to misunderstandings all too often, and drives children and other people crazy (as in “insane”, or “dysfunctional”). Small differences can have large effects.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

I don't think you have read the whole thread. This was discussed before.
The sad reality is, neither the ruleset with suicide nor the one without is simpler with the other. Each has to make an extra assumption compared to the other.

Correct, I have not read the thread.

However, the ruleset with one rule less (the one about suicide) is exactly that:
simpler by one rule !

And I could state that without reading all previous comments,
because it is self-evident.

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

*sigh* This is why you read threads.

viewtopic.php?p=120351#p120351. (You may also find it useful to read this: https://xkcd.com/1112/).

_________________
Occupy Babel!

You really should have read the thread

Here's four major ways to deal with capture/suicide:

1. Play stone. Remove any opposing stones without liberties. If you stone has no liberties, the move was illegal. (traditional)
2. Play stone. Remove any opposing stones without liberties. Remove any of your own stones without liberties. (NewZealandRules)
3. Play stone. Remove any opposing stones without liberties. (DelayedSuicide)
4. Play stone. Remove any stones without liberties (SimultaneousCapture)

The New Zealand style suicide rule is not really simpler than disallowing it. Simpler rules exist, but are not played anywhere.

Thanks for that, Herman. I had never thought of delayed suicide before.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

since it was brought up:


Regular go actually has two rules regarding this.
1: if you play a stone that starts with no liberties that gains liberties in the process of capturing opponents stones, it is not removed.
2: rule forbidding suicide

go permitting suicide has one
1: if you play a stone that starts with no liberties that gains liberties in the process of capturing opponents stones, it is not removed.
Tommie is infact correct, although he probably should have read the thread

Counting rules is extremely hard--you need a set vocabulary and/or restrictions on the complexity of the rules (otherwise, you just concatenate all your rules, and presto, any game has just one rule!), and there is no guarantee that two distinct vocabularies, the ordering produced will be the same.

What Palapiku's example strictly shows is that permitting suicide is not necessarily simpler than banning it. However, in a vocabulary I find natural (but I'm not as good with rules as some people on here), I'd say:

Standard go:
1. Stones are eligible for removal when they (or their containing groups) have no liberties.
2. After playing a stone, one removes all enemy groups which are eligible for removal.
3. One may not play a stone which would be eligible for removal after completing phase 2.

Suicide go:
1. Ditto.
2. Ditto.
3. One then removes any remaining stones which are eligible for removal.

Thus, complexity is even.

As I pointed out earlier, it's a fact about our psychology that we tend to assume something about the ordering question Palapiku raised, whether or not it's stated. But if what we're really after is logical/mathematical simplicity, we want to be explicit about these things.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Technically what you wrote was a list of steps after each turn, not a list of rules, but I do see your point

Under these suggested rules, it is legal to play a move that removes your own last liberty. And, since there is no rule to tell you to remove them, those stones then remain on the board.

This is a valid set of rules, but it is in no way even near any rules allowing suicide, such as New Zealand rules.

obviously I was omitting the rule: "at the end of every turn, a stone with no liberties is removed" from both rule sets. Just like I was omitting rules about about scoring and dead stones.

Ah, I see, so:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . X O . .
$$ . X O 1 O .
$$ . . X O . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

results in

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . X O . .
$$ . X . . O .
$$ . . X O . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

then?

Just to add another thing to the discussion.

Today I discovered that there is an algorithm used by computer programs to analyze the status of groups, especially if they are unconditionally alive. It's called Benson's algorithm and one of the necessary conditions is that the ruleset forbid suicides. With suicides the algorithm needs more analyzes and thus more time.

So, whith a ruleset tha allows suicide, computer programs would have a harder time to find the status of groups.