HermanHiddema wrote:
In the "Suicide case", the axiom is pointless and can be left out, as it is always true as a result of the rules. In the "No suicide" case, it is required.
I think either case can be written roughly equally elegantly and concisely, and neither option is really more complex than the other.
The Tromp-Taylor rules have a similar trade-off.
Instead of the two rules
4. Clearing a color is the process of emptying all points of that color that don't reach empty.
7. A move consists of coloring an empty point one's own color;
then clearing the opponent color, and then clearing one's own color.
a version forbidding suicide would probably have only one rule:
7'. A move consists of coloring an empty point one's own color,
such that it reaches empty after emptying all points of the
opponent color that don't reach empty.
Since only the opponent stones need "clearing" there's no need to define
that notion separately. It is arguable which one is more complex.
While the new one is shorter, the old one feels somewhat more streamlined
(an admittedly subjective notion).
My major reason for preferring suicide is to have only one condition
on the legality of playing an empty point (no repetition),
rather than two quite different ones (no repetition and no suicide).
regards,
-John