lets open the discussion about what the widest and finest rule set is.

With widest i mean:

- least restriction on play. (almost everything is legal)


With finest i mean:
- something like territory counting. ( the difference in points can be 1)

That is about it.

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

Calvinball!

My version of double button go. (As explained earlier this year on GoDiscussions.)

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

New Zealand (Tromp-Taylor)?

i think the widest and finest is:

- Ikeda rules (area III) or Two Button Go

But instead of a superko rule the Fixed Ko Rule(repeated positions may occur but you are not allowed to make the same move in them.)


The advantage of area scoring (the positions can always be played out)
The advantage of territory scoring (early passing is worth something)

- no pass stones (I am just not used to them )

A drawback of the Ikeda rules is that White is treated differeent from Black (White gets an extra point if black has the last move)

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

You seem to presume that it must be a Go-like game.



Widest:

- no passes (so that there are more plays on average)
- no ko rules (so that there will be plays forever)
- suicide allowed

Now that was easy...but...did you nean it...LOL



Finest:

Examples allowing smallest score difference one:
- stone scoring
- area scoring
- territory scoring
- button scoring

So WTH are you asking?!

Example allowing rational scores:
- Ing 1986 Rules

This is why I don't like the fixed ko rule:

Superko allows no repetition.
Fixed ko rule allows repetition of 1 position but then you must leave the previous path.
Why stop there? Let's introduce the N-fixed ko rule. It allows the repetition of N positions in a row but then you must leave the previous path.

Then superko is just 0-fixed ko, fixed ko is 1-fixed ko, and you can have 2-fixed, 42-fixed, billion-fixed rulesets if you like.

Since the number at which you must break the cycle is arbitrary, and we can't choose the biggest one since there's no biggest number, why not choose the smallest, which is 0? Everything else is "more arbitrary".

Note that if your goal is the "widest" ruleset then you want the N to be as big as possible, not just 1. Unfortunately there's no biggest number.

I prefer leaving in the option for triple ko.

OC, I also invented (but did not name it) the N-fixed ko rule:)

The fixed ko rule used alone is not meant to be used for ordinary Go. So there is no need to consider whether one (dis)likes it. Much more interesting is the fixed ko rule used for a particular purpose.

1) Purpose: Create ko rules for ordinary Go. Example ruleset: the Basic-Fixed-Ko-Rules. From a purely theoretical, simplifying design view, yes, N=1 is arbitrary. The Basic-Fixed-Ko-Rules achieve something else though: basic kos are fought like we all know it while all long cycle kos are not worth fighting (disturbing kos). This is strategically very simple for the long cycle kos! Now you can choose an opinion whether that is to be liked or disliked.

2) Purpose: Define go terms like "ko" or basic ko types. For this purpose, N=1 fits. N>1 would be an overkill (if it should also work for the purpose, I do not know yet). I like it to have those definitions. Would you prefer not to have them just because you dislike N=1?!



In my previous message (read it again!), you see the implicit biggest number / bound infinity.



If this mathematical elegance were your only criterion for what makes a good rule, sure.

Allow ko.

A board repetition is immediately a draw.

I think this would alter the rules too much from regular go. If a player is winning, they can never create a ko position, for fear of drawing. If I am white, and I'm winning and the board has a ko like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

I can't take that ko, because black would happily retake and draw the game.

For what it's worth, I don't think "most positions allowed" is a good criteria for go rules. I think normal positional superko is probably best.

When I teach go I give them a 9x9 board and 41 stones each. I explain about capturing, about no repitition and that the one who has all his stones on the board has won the game. After they both have passed in succession they are allowed to place stones on the empty positions completely surrounded by friendly stones with capturing abolished. The one with the most stones on the board has won. Probably this is just chinese, but it is very easily explained.

_________________
I think I am so I think I am.

I prefer to have no superko at all. This is certainly the "widest" option. It allows for really fun scenarios such as a triple ko on the board, like oren said. To me, the possibility (always remote and therefore exciting) of really bizarre situations arising is one of the appeals of Go.

Consider the Chinese proverb about eternal life on the board:
You should buy fish, vegetables, meat and wine and have a good party to celebrate yourself

Do you really want to deprive yourself of that possibility?

I think that's just stone scoring.

I want to buy fish, vegetables, meat, and wine, have a good party to celebrate the game, and continue playing it.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.