What do you think about this modification to the capture rule?

It changes the nature of the game sufficiently that it is no longer go. Although it may be an interesting game in itself, it doesn't really add anything of value w.r.t go that makes me particularly want to play it.

That reminds me of the people who didn't like hyperbolic geometry, and felt that it was no longer geometry. It took a new generation of mathematicians who didn't know any better to appreciate it.
Changing the capture rule is like changing the parallel postulate. It produces something different, but not something demonstrably inferior.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

I never claimed it was inferior (demonstrably or not), but I see no reason why it is superior to go either. Sometimes, you can fix a flaw and make a game better. I don't think this is the case here. It's simply a different game.

Actually, since it removes ko fighting from the game, and all the subtleties involved with creating kos, maintaining/keeping track of threats beforehand as well, and so forth, that the resultant game really is inferior to the current version :p

It introduces a different type of ko, actually. Suppose, in the following diagram, that connecting at a is important to white:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

So black tries to prevent it it by playing there:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

After black plays , white is not allowed to simul-capture at b, because that would repeat the position before . So white will have to make a ko-threat with , and after black responds with , white can capture at b:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ . . . O . .
$$ . X X O X X
$$ . X 4 B O .
$$ . . X O O .
$$ . X . . . .[/go]

simul-captures and itself, resulting in the following position, locally identical to the first diagram:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

now, black is not allowed to play at a with , since that would repeat the position before . So black will have to find a ko-threat, etc.

Hence, we have a ko fight...

I assume for this variation we use Chinese/Area counting. Trying to apply territory counting to this ruleset breaks my brain.

For example: As white passes a handful of stones to black, she can be heard saying, "here are your white prisoners that I captured for you..." illogical.

I think there is a conceptual difference. You use geometry for a purpose, namely as a help to understand nature (science) or design useful gadgets (technology), etc. Hyperbolic geometry may (or may not) be a step forward to it.

However, go is already human defined. Of course, changing a detail in a rule may have a purpose like for example helping to simplify the game (e.g. bent four in the corner) thus making it more enjoyable. Or let's say it may facilitate solving the game as a whole (if that is the purpose).

But once you change such a basic rule, you do not achieve anything related to Go, but you just create another game. That's my opinion.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

In a tight sense, each two different rulesets create different (go-like) games. In a broad sense, rules changes that do not alter relative playing strengths of all the go players can still be considered to be in the go-game family. Counter-example: Using a triangular grid would create a new game (although such is often called a go "variant").

In the example on the Sensei's page, who gets the white stone that's taken off the board?

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Lets assume area scoring so it doesn't matter

HermanHiddema, Joaz Banbeck, and Entropi, don't think of Simcap Go as a change, but instead taking a step back and inventing Go the right way (if only because of a simpler rule). The question is, is it the right way; is it deeper?

I think this variation has an even more fundamental implication: By removing both groups of stones, you are in effect allowing suicide. So the question is really: Should you be allowed to remove the last liberty from a group of your own stones, thus removing the whole group from play? If so, for example with New Zealand rules, then yeah, this idea makes a lot of sense.

As for whether it is "deeper" or not... I would say no, but neither is it less "deep."

1 A step back is also a change of position.
2 The RIGHT in the right way is a very very loaded term. What do you mean by Right?
3 Why is it deeper? an alternative would be more interesting and maybe sometime people will agree with you, but at the moment i find temporary go interesting enough.
4 Don't be so negative on the other posters. (By the Way, for me Herman showed that Simcap Go has probably a similar complexaty as go as we know it)

Maybe is Simcap Go the way they play go on other places in the univere (Some say that go is discovered not invented) but who will can say it is the right way.

But why would they not play:

- a version of Tibetan Go (immediate recapture forbidden)
- Sunjang Baduk (stones that are not part of a border are removed at the end of the game)
or another yet undiscovered version?

And even if they play the game game as us which rules do they use? (or are they as confused as us, and hoped that we could tell them )





About the Right side:
In the UK cars really drive on the wrong side of the road. and luckely there are not many who say that they are driving on the Right side.

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

1. I don't understand. I meant that one should not look at any ruleset with the bias that 'it's just a change to one we have already.' Pretend Go doesn't exist yet. Is simcap better?

2. & 3. I suppose there is no best version of Go unless we agree there exists a purpose to Go. I started this thread because I believe we should strive to make Go, a game unique in its simplicity (rules only) yet depth, simpler and deeper. So far, it doesn't seem likely that simcap achieves the latter.

4. I apologize if I have been negative, but how?

I think most of the people here have already expressed their opinion that it does not seem better or worse than normal Go.


I really don't share your goals, but I don't see how simultaneous capture achieves your goal either. It doesn't seem to me that regular Go is much if at all more complicated than simultaneous capture Go.

If you want to play Go with those rules, I have no objections. However, the response you are getting here is pretty much the same as the response I expect you would get it if you went on a chess forum and suggested changing the rules so that a knight can move one space forward, as long as it is not capturing a piece (like a pawn). Is it demonstrably better or worse? I doubt it. Does it seem to lack a reason to make the change? Yes. We can debate which is better if you can give some good reasons why you think simultaneous capture might be better, but please don't expect us to actually change the basic rules of a game that has been played for thousands of years and is played worldwide.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Rules-wise, the only reason simcap is any simpler is because normal capture specifically allows surrounded capturing stones/groups to stay on the board (and we can ignore that prisoner ambiguity with area scoring); not a big thing, or is it? I'm asking what simcap would imply, not for a vote. To recap (no ko intended) from the SL page, points to consider include length of game, involvement of superko, frequency of sekis, difficulty of killing, and number of ko threats necessary to win a ko fight.

It seems to me that sekis would be less common because in the most common type, the player with less stones would break it. It would force an area to be re-resolved, lengthening the game, but perhaps making the moves leading to capture boring? Ko might be the only way to make a seki.

You would get sekis with a single shared liberty, because neither player is willing to make the capture. Making the capture allows the other player to play first in that area, and probably more points. Example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

It does not matter who simul-captures, the resulting position will be the same:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

In this position, it is obvious that the player who gets to play at a will be better off locally.

Therefore, neither player is willing to capture in the original diagram.

I never thought of that. Would snapback be more likely to involve ko?