RobertJasiek wrote:
willemien, what is "natural" for the purpose of go rules? For the sake of simplicity, let us forgo the grid, the choice of playing stones on the vertices (instead of the facets or lines), the number of players, Black first etc. and let us assume the game shall be a mental competition etc.
Now go ahead and evaluate which ruleset is or is not natural as a whole...!
the problem with go is that to much is natural.
It is as natural to count territory as it is to count area. And therefore there is a lot of discussion between the merits of one above the merits of the other.
(one of the big advantages of territory counting is you don't need to count as far)
all kinds of repeated position have something "looks natural" over them. and therefore are also open to discussion. (non is obviously better than an other, they all have some merit)
It goes a bit back to an old adagio.
Chess was invented, Go was discovered.
(but we still need to learn to recognise the best rules)
_________________
Promotor and Librarian of
Sensei's Library