Is this already a ruleset?

go-master · #1

Is this already an existing ruleset? I use it for amateur playing at home with friends because it is the most simple ruleset I can think of.

First, you take the basic rules from Wikipedia ("concise statement"):

Quote:

1. The board is empty at the onset of the game (unless players agree to place a handicap).
2. Black makes the first move, after which White and Black alternate.
3. A move consists of placing one stone of one's own color on an empty intersection on the board.
4. A player may pass his turn at any time.
5. A stone or solidly connected group of stones of one color is captured and removed from the board when all the intersections directly adjacent to it are occupied by the enemy. (Capture of the enemy takes precedence over self-capture.)
6. No stone may be played so as to recreate a former board position.
7. Two consecutive passes end the game.
8. A player's territory consists of all the points the player has either occupied or surrounded.
9. The player with more territory wins.

Then, you add prohibition against suicide. You also change the super-ko rule into the simple-ko rule. Finally, you add a komi of 7.5.

I think this is the best rule-set for homeplaying because it includes the most simple rules. What do you think? And is there already a ruleset like this out there?

axd · #2

Did you have a look at SL?

RobertJasiek · #3

The ruleset is essentially complete.

What you call "territory" is called "area".

There are already rulesets like that, see the Short Rules section on

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html

Phelan · #4

I wouldn't call it complete: The handicap case allows(and actually may force) Black to play after placing his handicap stones. I'm not sure how to fix it while making the sentences as simple as the ones the OP used. Note: I haven't looked at your page yet, Robert.

I do agree with Robert on "Territory" vs "Area". What you call Territory there is usually called Area in most Go rulesets and definitions that I know. While the distinction won't matter for first time teaching, there will be confusion if the players you teach that way discuss/research "territory".
I think nothing is lost by switching the term to "area", and a lot is gained.

go-master · #5

Thanks! BTW, is the difference in komi in Japan and China due to other differences in scoring or counting? Or is it just different?

Phelan · #6

go-master wrote:

Thanks! BTW, is the difference in komi in Japan and China due to other differences in scoring or counting? Or is it just different?

I think it is due to the differences in counting. I don't remember enough about it now, but I think China doesn't use the half-point in komi, having odd(mathematically) komi values instead. I might be wrong, since this is from memory.

I think there should be more about this in Senseis Library, in the Komi entry. Others are also likely to know more.

Mef · #7

Phelan wrote:

go-master wrote:

Thanks! BTW, is the difference in komi in Japan and China due to other differences in scoring or counting? Or is it just different?

I think it is due to the differences in counting. I don't remember enough about it now, but I think China doesn't use the half-point in komi, having odd(mathematically) komi values instead. I might be wrong, since this is from memory.

I think there should be more about this in Senseis Library, in the Komi entry. Others are also likely to know more.

Technically Chinese rules use a half komi system, where komi is usually 3.75 pts (this is because when scoring like the Chinese do you are in essence adding 3.75 points to one players total, and subtracting it from the other, a total difference of 7.5, the number that we are used to). It's always given as an odd number because for all games that don't have an odd number of unplayed points (something that only happens in special sekis), the score difference between the two player's scores is odd. The closest game on the board you can have is 180 to 181 points (win by 1). After that (again, assuming we don't have a special seki), the next closest it could be is 179 to 182 (win by 3). The result is that if you set the komi to be 2.5, it is virtually the same as having a komi of only 1.5 (because you will either win by 1 point or 3). The equivalent to Japanese komi of 6.5 is therefore a Chinese komi of 7.5 (which is actually 3.75).

Phelan · #8

Mef wrote:

Phelan wrote:

go-master wrote:

Thanks! BTW, is the difference in komi in Japan and China due to other differences in scoring or counting? Or is it just different?

I think it is due to the differences in counting. I don't remember enough about it now, but I think China doesn't use the half-point in komi, having odd(mathematically) komi values instead. I might be wrong, since this is from memory.

I think there should be more about this in Senseis Library, in the Komi entry. Others are also likely to know more.

Technically Chinese rules use a half komi system, where komi is usually 3.75 pts (this is because when scoring like the Chinese do you are in essence adding 3.75 points to one players total, and subtracting it from the other, a total difference of 7.5, the number that we are used to). It's always given as an odd number because for all games that don't have an odd number of unplayed points (something that only happens in special sekis), the score difference between the two player's scores is odd. The closest game on the board you can have is 180 to 181 points (win by 1). After that (again, assuming we don't have a special seki), the next closest it could be is 179 to 182 (win by 3). The result is that if you set the komi to be 2.5, it is virtually the same as having a komi of only 1.5 (because you will either win by 1 point or 3). The equivalent to Japanese komi of 6.5 is therefore a Chinese komi of 7.5 (which is actually 3.75).

Thanks, Mef.

Is this already a ruleset?

Who is online