It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:29 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #21 Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:18 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
I choose the Simple Rules
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/simple.html
because

- rules ought to be simple and clear,
- area scoring avoids the stone scoring encore of many plays not changing the score,
- area scoring avoids the strategic simplification of stone scoring,
- for practical purposes, area scoring and territory scoring are strategically equally demanding (area scoring has the additional fight about one excess dame, territory scoring has the additional fight about avoiding typically at most one teire if the score is at most one point) but area scoring achieves this with simple and clear rules while the simplest territory scoring rules (such derived from real-world territory scoring rules related to a life concept rather than such by theorists related to pass-fights, buttons or control)
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html
are already much less simple and clarity requires an understanding of more concepts than necessary for rules,
- the simplicity of the rules clarifies status by removals according to the regular rules of alternation instead of clarification by exceptional rules for (dis)agreements about removals (such as in New Zealand, AGA or Chinese Rules) or for life definitions (such as in the Simplified Japanese Rules),
- allowing or prohibiting suicide is equally simple and clear in rules but suicide is allowed because strategy becomes more demanding,
- passes are necessary to avoid pass fights,
- the game ends on two successive passes because this is the simplest clear game end condition and, for practical purposes, strategy is equally demanding regardless of the number of passes in a game end condition,
- passes do not lift ko bans because this gives the simplest clear game end condition and, for practical purposes, strategy is equally demanding regardless of whether passes lift ko bans,
- positional superko is used because this is the simplest clear ko ruleset and, for practical purposes, strategy is equally demanding regardless of the ko ruleset (in particular: the superko rule(s) variant).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #22 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:37 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 94
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 4
oren wrote:
tiger314 wrote:
Bent four in the corner shows how arbitrary traditional territory scoring rules are. Since playing the situation out would cost points (removing ko threats is likely to involve playing in territory), it always has to be evaluated locally. Under an area ruleset, you can remove ko threats free of charge (after filling dame) so the situation can be played out and unremovable ko threats, which are part of the game, can alter the status.


All rules are arbitrary. The reason to make that one is to avoid having to remove all the ko threats and get to the finish point faster.

All rules are arbitrary, but some rules are more arbitrary than others. :cool:
For example this position:

Why should white win? If the game continues, black clearly wins.
(Please assume the bottom left is impossible to invade)


_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #23 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:35 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 94
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 4
Quote:
- rules ought to be simple and clear,

I think we all agree on this one. But is it so important that there has to be no komi and all dead stones actually have to be removed by play even if players agree on the status? Plus making rules this short means a single wording error can send the game haywire.

Quote:
- the simplicity of the rules clarifies status by removals according to the regular rules of alternation instead of clarification by exceptional rules for (dis)agreements about removals (such as in New Zealand, AGA or Chinese Rules)

I don't think "if there is disagreement about removeability of a group, resume play and any stones remaining on the board after next two passes are considered unremovable for counting purposes" can really be called an exceptional rule, since it pretty much says "if you don't agree what the result is, switch to simplified rules"

Quote:
- passes do not lift ko bans because this gives the simplest clear game end condition and, for practical purposes, strategy is equally demanding regardless of whether passes lift ko bans,

The reason for messing about with pass to lift ko bans rules are situations like below. But, in the name of simplicity, we can probably call it black's mistake to let such a position appear and consider it rare enough to apply the simple superko.


_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #24 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:54 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374


Double button go yields the same result as by AGA rules. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #25 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:12 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374


Double Button Go does definitely not produce the same result as AGA rules. Taking the first button lifts the ko ban.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #26 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:32 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
tiger314 wrote:
Quote:
- rules ought to be simple and clear,

I think we all agree on this one.


I think that we can all agree that the rules should be clear. But simple? IMX, few games worth playing, childhood games aside, have simple rules. Furthermore, in informal play the unwritten rules are different from those in the rule book, and there are often local variants.

In go, a simple superko rule can impose a burden on human players. It is possible for the player who made a ko threat and took the superko to get lost and have to make another threat. It is also possible for a repetition to occur without the players noticing. What is the problem with rules that may be inelegant or complex but make it easy on human players?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #27 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:40 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 94
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 4
Just to clarify
Quote:
*** I get 34 pts. for White, which yields Black +14

All your scores in all positions ale using double button Go?

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #28 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:53 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
tiger314 wrote:
Just to clarify
Quote:
*** I get 34 pts. for White, which yields Black +14

All your scores in all positions ale using double button Go?


No. That was for area scoring. The 14 is a typo. :( It should be +13. (81 - 34) - 34 = 13.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #29 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:09 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 94
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 4
Bill Spight wrote:
tiger314 wrote:
Quote:
- rules ought to be simple and clear,

I think we all agree on this one.


I think that we can all agree that the rules should be clear. But simple? IMX, few games worth playing, childhood games aside, have simple rules. Furthermore, in informal play the unwritten rules are different from those in the rule book, and there are often local variants.

In go, a simple superko rule can impose a burden on human players. It is possible for the player who made a ko threat and took the superko to get lost and have to make another threat. It is also possible for a repetition to occur without the players noticing. What is the problem with rules that may be inelegant or complex but make it easy on human players?

The problem is that complex usually means hard on human players. I think the best example being the Ing ko rule. The ko section of Ing's rules has like 300 words (Robert's complete rules have only about 150) and is understood by only a handful of amateur players, and I have never seen anyone successfully implement it in a program. Why isn't the less than twenty words of not repeating previous positions enough? I know superko is quite tricky to apply, but with the exception of voiding/drawing a game with a complex ko, there is nothing simpler.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #30 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:35 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
tiger314 wrote:
Quote:
- rules ought to be simple and clear,

I think we all agree on this one.

Bill Spight wrote:
I think that we can all agree that the rules should be clear. But simple? IMX, few games worth playing, childhood games aside, have simple rules. Furthermore, in informal play the unwritten rules are different from those in the rule book, and there are often local variants.

In go, a simple superko rule can impose a burden on human players. It is possible for the player who made a ko threat and took the superko to get lost and have to make another threat. It is also possible for a repetition to occur without the players noticing. What is the problem with rules that may be inelegant or complex but make it easy on human players?

tiger314 wrote:
The problem is that complex usually means hard on human players. I think the best example being the Ing ko rule. The ko section of Ing's rules has like 300 words (Robert's complete rules have only about 150) and is understood by only a handful of amateur players, and I have never seen anyone successfully implement it in a program. Why isn't the less than twenty words of not repeating previous positions enough? I know superko is quite tricky to apply, but with the exception of voiding/drawing a game with a complex ko, there is nothing simpler.


In 1977 or so I wrote a short article for the AGA Journal about the Ing rules at the time. Taiwan had adopted them. They were the same as what were later the Taylor-Trump rules, or almost so, and included a simple superko rule. In the article I recommended the use of pass stones, which I called bookkeeping stones. From what I have heard, around 1981 someone pointed out to Ing that a superko consisting of two identical double ko death positions meant that one of the "dead" groups had to be taken to leave only one double ko death, or one "dead" group could live. Apparently this was an unintended consequence for Ing. The superko rule had changed the game more than Ing had meant to do, making it more complex. (It is also likely that some pro players shared Ing's dismay and talked to him about that.) In terms that Ing later used, the superko rule turned two disturbing kos into one fighting ko. Ing revised his rules a number of times, and, as far as kos are concerned, they became more complex in order to make the game less complex. (IMO, he succeeded with the 1996 version of his rules, but they are not all that clear, because he attempted to derive his rules from general principles. Others have explained them more clearly. I imagine that the Ing rules could be programmed if you ignore the principles. ;)) I do not like the Ing rules, but I agree in general and within limits with the idea of making the rules more complex or "illogical" in order to make them less complex for humans.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #31 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:46 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 94
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 4
Bill Spight wrote:
tiger314 wrote:
Quote:
- rules ought to be simple and clear,

I think we all agree on this one.

Bill Spight wrote:
I think that we can all agree that the rules sho moould be clear. But simple? IMX, few games worth playing, childhood games aside, have simple rules. Furthermore, in informal play the unwritten rules are different from those in the rule book, and there are often local variants.

In go, a simple superko rule can impose a burden on human players. It is possible for the player who made a ko threat and took the superko to get lost and have to make another threat. It is also possible for a repetition to occur without the players noticing. What is the problem with rules that may be inelegant or complex but make it easy on human players?

tiger314 wrote:
The problem is that complex usually means hard on human players. I think the best example being the Ing ko rule. The ko section of Ing's rules has like 300 words (Robert's complete rules have only about 150) and is understood by only a handful of amateur players, and I have never seen anyone successfully implement it in a program. Why isn't the less than twenty words of not repeating previous positions enough? I know superko is quite tricky to apply, but with the exception of voiding/drawing a game with a complex ko, there is nothing simpler.


In 1977 or so I wrote a short article for the AGA Journal about the Ing rules at the time. Taiwan had adopted them. They were the same as what were later the Taylor-Trump rules, or almost so, and included a simple superko rule. In the article I recommended the use of pass stones, which I called bookkeeping stones. From what I have heard, around 1981 someone pointed out to Ing that a superko consisting of two identical double ko death positions meant that one of the "dead" groups had to be taken to leave only one double ko death, or one "dead" group could live. Apparently this was an unintended consequence for Ing. The superko rule had changed the game more than Ing had meant to do, making it more complex. (It is also likely that some pro players shared Ing's dismay and talked to him about that.) In terms that Ing later used, the superko rule turned two disturbing kos into one fighting ko. Ing revised his rules a number of times, and, as far as kos are concerned, they became more complex in order to make the game less complex. (IMO, he succeeded with the 1996 version of his rules, but they are not all that clear, because he attempted to derive his rules from general principles. Others have explained them more clearly. I imagine that the Ing rules could be programmed if you ignore the principles. ;)) I do not like the Ing rules, but I agree in general and within limits with the idea of making the rules more complex or "illogical" in order to make them less complex for humans.

I agree that rules should not be as simple as possible, for example, it is unnesesary to force players to remove dead stones by play, an agreement option should be included. But I still don't see the point in replacing a simple rule that is somewhat difficult to apply, with an incredibly complex rule which is even harder to apply and fails when literally interpreted. With all due respect, I think Ing didn't realise that for his rules to became widely used, they would not only have to be suitable for professionals, but also amateurs.

And hats off to the inventor of the brilliant concept of pass stones :bow:

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #32 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:56 pm 
Oza

Posts: 2180
Location: ʍoquıɐɹ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo 'ǝɹǝɥʍǝɯos
Liked others: 237
Was liked: 662
Rank: AGA 5d
GD Posts: 4312
Online playing schedule: Every tenth February 29th from 20:00-20:01 (if time permits)
tiger314 wrote:
And hats off to the inventor of the brilliant concept of pass stones :bow:


If Bill really invented the idea of the pass stone I have lost a little of my respect for him. I consider it the most ludicrous idea to have been added to the rules. Totally unnatural. Even worse than the arbitrary seki rules. At least they have some historical justification.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).


This post by DrStraw was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #33 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:57 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
tiger314 wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
I think that we can all agree that the rules should be clear. But simple? IMX, few games worth playing, childhood games aside, have simple rules. Furthermore, in informal play the unwritten rules are different from those in the rule book, and there are often local variants.

In go, a simple superko rule can impose a burden on human players. It is possible for the player who made a ko threat and took the superko to get lost and have to make another threat. It is also possible for a repetition to occur without the players noticing. What is the problem with rules that may be inelegant or complex but make it easy on human players?

tiger314 wrote:
The problem is that complex usually means hard on human players. I think the best example being the Ing ko rule. The ko section of Ing's rules has like 300 words (Robert's complete rules have only about 150) and is understood by only a handful of amateur players, and I have never seen anyone successfully implement it in a program. Why isn't the less than twenty words of not repeating previous positions enough? I know superko is quite tricky to apply, but with the exception of voiding/drawing a game with a complex ko, there is nothing simpler.

Bill Spight wrote:
In 1977 or so I wrote a short article for the AGA Journal about the Ing rules at the time. Taiwan had adopted them. They were the same as what were later the Taylor-Trump rules, or almost so, and included a simple superko rule. In the article I recommended the use of pass stones, which I called bookkeeping stones. From what I have heard, around 1981 someone pointed out to Ing that a superko consisting of two identical double ko death positions meant that one of the "dead" groups had to be taken to leave only one double ko death, or one "dead" group could live. Apparently this was an unintended consequence for Ing. The superko rule had changed the game more than Ing had meant to do, making it more complex. (It is also likely that some pro players shared Ing's dismay and talked to him about that.) In terms that Ing later used, the superko rule turned two disturbing kos into one fighting ko. Ing revised his rules a number of times, and, as far as kos are concerned, they became more complex in order to make the game less complex. (IMO, he succeeded with the 1996 version of his rules, but they are not all that clear, because he attempted to derive his rules from general principles. Others have explained them more clearly. I imagine that the Ing rules could be programmed if you ignore the principles. ;)) I do not like the Ing rules, but I agree in general and within limits with the idea of making the rules more complex or "illogical" in order to make them less complex for humans.

I agree that rules should not be as simple as possible, for example, it is unnesesary to force players to remove dead stones by play, an agreement option should be included. But I still don't see the point in replacing a simple rule that is somewhat difficult to apply, with an incredibly complex rule which is even harder to apply and fails when literally interpreted. With all due respect, I think Ing didn't realise that for his rules to became widely used, they would not only have to be suitable for professionals, but also amateurs.

And hats off to the inventor of the brilliant concept of pass stones :bow:


Oh, there is no question that Ing reached out to amateurs in the West. I got sent a set of Ing stones and bowls out of the blue, for instance. I think that the Ing rules as set out by Kim, Simon, and Strauss ( http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/KSS.html ), it is not hard to distinguish disturbing kos from fighting kos. But if you try to distinguish between them according to Ing's principles, I think that you will fail.

As for pass stones, a number of people came up with the idea independently, and I was not the first. Barry Phease and I came up with the idea of Button Go independently, but he was first. I think that Herman Hiddema can take credit for Double Button Go. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


Last edited by Bill Spight on Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #34 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:53 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 94
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 4
Bill Spight wrote:
Oh, there is no question that Ing reached out to amateurs in the West.

There are a few things that put amateurs off the Ing rules, which Ing could have surely avoided:
-The rules are 60 pages long, 3x longer than Japanese rules with commentary and 25 life and death examples, plus you cannot just take the first few pages as "rules" and the rest as "commentary".
-Requiring exactly 180 stones might be fine for big competitions, but an amateur club player is quite annoyed by having to count the stones manually.
-Ko rules that nobody understands and servers cannot use are especially popular.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #35 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:50 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
tiger314 wrote:
that there has to be no komi


If komi are not specified in the rules of play, then they are specified in the tournament rules. This does not mean that there might not be komi.

Quote:
and all dead stones actually have to be removed by play even if players agree on the status?


My rules do not speak of "dead", "have to" and "agree", but if you are asking whether my rules intend to continue alternation for the sake of removals, yes, this is my preference.

Quote:
I don't think "if there is disagreement about removeability of a group, resume play and any stones remaining on the board after next two passes are considered unremovable for counting purposes" can really be called an exceptional rule, since it pretty much says "if you don't agree what the result is, switch to simplified rules"


It is an exception to having only alternation as a means to place or remove stones. It is an exception to distinguish between agreement and disagreement at all. It is an exception to switch to "simplified" rules in the case of a condition.

Quote:
in the name of simplicity, we can probably call it black's mistake to let such a position appear


Simple rules do not even consider such exceptional positions. Quite contrarily, in the name of complicated rules, it is possible to introduce rules exceptions.

***

Why is there any talk about bent-4? The problem is not bent-4 but exceptional rules in Japanese rules:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagc.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003com.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcflaw.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcmod.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j_verbal_status.pdf

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #36 Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:04 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 94
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 4
RobertJasiek wrote:
If komi are not specified in the rules of play, then they are specified in the tournament rules. This does not mean that there might not be komi.

Since komi doesn't apply only to tournaments, but also to online and club play, I think it is a matter of the game and not the tournament rules.

RobertJasiek wrote:
My rules do not speak of "dead", "have to" and "agree", but if you are asking whether my rules intend to continue alternation for the sake of removals, yes, this is my preference.

Your rules do not "intend" to continue alternation, they provide no other choice. Other area rulesets provide two choices, agree and count or continue alternation. That is maybe in line with what Bill said about making rules slightly more complex to be simpler to humans. You are still not forced to let any stones be removed using the "special" rule but you have the choice to.

RobertJasiek wrote:
It is an exception to having only alternation as a means to place or remove stones. It is an exception to distinguish between agreement and disagreement at all. It is an exception to switch to "simplified" rules in the case of a condition.

It is an exception that you cannot play a point which repeats a board position, it is an exception that stones may be removed from the board and it is an exception that two passes end game. I admit the agreement option isn't nesesary for the game, but the ruleset already includes exceptions.

RobertJasiek wrote:
Simple rules do not even consider such exceptional positions. Quite contrarily, in the name of complicated rules, it is possible to introduce rules exceptions.

Rules have to be able to somehow deal with every position.

RobertJasiek wrote:
Why is there any talk about bent-4? The problem is not bent-4 but exceptional rules in Japanese rules:

Bent 4 is the best known example of exceptions in the Japanese rules. We all know it is not the only one, but it nicely illustrates the point.

BTW. Are you planning a revised version of Simple Rules which would fix diagram 5 so that all surrounded points are marked?

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #37 Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:21 am 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
tiger314 wrote:
Since komi doesn't apply only to tournaments, but also to online and club play, I think it is a matter of the game and not the tournament rules.


Either assignment makes sense, but you could make the same point for the determination of Black, thinking times and playing material.

Quote:
making rules slightly more complex to be simpler to humans.


Having an optional removals by agreement phase does not make things simpler to humans. It makes perception of their application nicer for some and worse for others.

Quote:
It is an exception that you cannot play a point which repeats a board position, it is an exception that stones may be removed from the board and it is an exception that two passes end game. I admit the agreement option isn't nesesary for the game, but the ruleset already includes exceptions.


Necessary versus unnecessary exceptions.

Quote:
Rules have to be able to somehow deal with every position.


Yes, that's why my rules do so.

Quote:
Bent 4 is the best known example of exceptions in the Japanese rules. We all know it is not the only one, but it nicely illustrates the point.


The best know examples of exceptions are so extremely frequent that many overlook them and resort to specific shapes to speak about exceptions.

Bent-4 is not a nice illustration because it involves just a basic ko, which does not need any extra rule.

Quote:
Are you planning a revised version of Simple Rules which would fix diagram 5 so that all surrounded points are marked?


Please explain.

(The page deserves better graphics but I lack time.)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #38 Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:16 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 94
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 4
RobertJasiek wrote:

Either assignment makes sense, but you could make the same point for the determination of Black, thinking times and playing material.

Playing with pieces of bread as counters and without any time limits hardly changes the game. Komi can often change the result. Assigning colours is not important as long as komi is given to the player making the second move.


Quote:
The best know examples of exceptions are so extremely frequent that many overlook them and resort to specific shapes to speak about exceptions.

Bent-4 is not a nice illustration because it involves just a basic ko, which does not need any extra rule.

Could you please post a few of these frequent exceptions, I would like to know a few, in case someone tries to persuade me that Japanese rules are simple. As for the bent 4, maybe the fact that it has only a simple ko makes it a good example, it shows Japanese rules sometimes cannot handle even a basic ko properly.

As for the diagram, it doesn't mark points shared in seki as surrounded, even through rules define them that way.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #39 Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:29 am 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
Frequent exceptions for Japanese rules:

EACH position, because the rules for the regular alternation and the exceptional rules for status assessment afterwards are different. To start with, there is only one sequence for the regular alternation but there are arbitrarily many relevant sequences, decision-making and strategies for status assessment.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Which ruleset would you choose?
Post #40 Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:46 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 94
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 4
RobertJasiek wrote:
Frequent exceptions for Japanese rules:

EACH position, because the rules for the regular alternation and the exceptional rules for status assessment afterwards are different. To start with, there is only one sequence for the regular alternation but there are arbitrarily many relevant sequences, decision-making and strategies for status assessment.

Could you please give an example where the regular and exceptional rules arrive at entirely different conclusions. Many times the rules are different, but the outcome is the same eg. a simple shape with one eye inside a simple shape with two eyes is dead (disregarding some unusual situations).

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group