What's wrong with suicide?

Harleqin · **#41**

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.

Good point!

Quote:

I think either case can be written roughly equally elegantly and concisely, and neither option is really more complex than the other.

I agree completely.

Harleqin · **#42**

HermanHiddema wrote:

If you want it even simpler:

Place a stone on the board
Remove any opposing stones without liberties.

With these rules, not only is suicide allowed, but the stone(s) placed into suicide will actually remain on the board! Any such stones will then be removed by step 2 of the opponent's next move!

In this case, the opponent would be unable to play on those intersections. This would annihilate the liberties axiom.

HermanHiddema · **#43**

Harleqin wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

If you want it even simpler:

Place a stone on the board
Remove any opposing stones without liberties.

With these rules, not only is suicide allowed, but the stone(s) placed into suicide will actually remain on the board! Any such stones will then be removed by step 2 of the opponent's next move!

In this case, the opponent would be unable to play on those intersections. This would annihilate the liberties axiom.

Yes, true, it would also mean that this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ------------ $$ | 1 X O . . . $$ | X O O X . . $$ | O O X . X . $$ | . X X . . . $$ | . . . . . . $$ | . X . . . . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

is a killing move, rather than a ko threat (when suicide is allowed) or an illegal move (when it isn't).

There is no reason to have the liberties axiom, other than tradition. Going without it just results in yet another variation of Go. A bit further removed from the common ones than most, perhaps, but still a valid rule set.

I really don't think there is any reason to consider rules with suicide superior to those without, it's just a matter of tradition and personal preference. The above example is meant as an illustration of how "simplicity" or "elegance" is not necessarily an argument in favor of certain rules variations. It is, in my opinion, a desirable quality only insofar as it does not intrude upon the basic nature of the game as we know it.

Harleqin · **#44**

The liberties axiom is the most central axiom of Go. Herman's variant goes too far.

palapiku · **#45**

A nice property of suicide not being allowed is that it guarantees that the game will end if one player is rational and the other is just blindly playing everywhere. Eventually he will run out of places to play (superko also does this, but not as quickly). This happened to me on KGS once, I was pissed off.

Bill Spight · **#46**

Cassandra wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

着手 are the Kanji in the rules. The second one means a play. The first one has a meaning of putting, fixing, or attaching, which seems like the operative one.

着 litarally means "arrival" or "clothes". The latter surely has something to do with "attaching". So the meaning may be something like "the hand that attaches" (a stone to the board).

In a Japanese book, where I found the rules in Japanese, 着手 is explained as 石を置く, what means "to put a stone in place".

着ける (tsukeru) is the meaning I had in mind.

Bill Spight · **#47**

HermanHiddema wrote:

If you want it even simpler:

Place a stone on the board
Remove any opposing stones without liberties.

With these rules, not only is suicide allowed, but the stone(s) placed into suicide will actually remain on the board! Any such stones will then be removed by step 2 of the opponent's next move!

(Yes, this means you can kill some groups that could otherwise not be killed, but the same is true for the current "suicide" vs. "no suicide" rules. It is a valid set of rules

)

Or this?

To make a board play, place a stone on the board, then remove any opposing stones without a liberty.

To make a move, remove any opposing stones without a liberty, then make a board play, play a button, or pass.

HKA · **#48**

Harleqin wrote:

The liberties axiom is the most central axiom of Go. Herman's variant goes too far.

First of all, I am sure I will regret trying to skip a stone across this Jasiekian pond - I am no rule maven.

And I do not claim to be able to suggest the most elegant phrasiing for any of this.

That being said - I side with suicide.

I quote the above because I come at the issue from a different direction, a different axiom. I believe the axiom that a board position cannot be repeated is more central.

A stone can be placed anywhere, in any empty intersection, provided it changes the board position.

Therefore, a stone placed in a false eye, or a singular last remaining eye - a place without liberties - is allowed to stand because it kills the enemy stones, thus changing the board position.

Similarly, a stone connecting two friendly stones, as a ko threat, is allowed to be played - because by killing its two companions - it changes the board position.

It should go without saying, that placing a suicide stone in a libertyless and supported eye is, aside from pointless, illegal, because it is removed without changing the board position.

To me, playing in a place without liberties to kill the enemy, or to kill oneself, requires the same leap of understanding, and allowing one, and not the other seems inconsistent.

HermanHiddema · **#49**

Harleqin wrote:

Herman's variant goes too far.

I agree completely, it is just not go as we know it.

But then, for many people, the same is true for go with suicide allowed

HermanHiddema · **#50**

Bill Spight wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

If you want it even simpler:

Place a stone on the board
Remove any opposing stones without liberties.

With these rules, not only is suicide allowed, but the stone(s) placed into suicide will actually remain on the board! Any such stones will then be removed by step 2 of the opponent's next move!

(Yes, this means you can kill some groups that could otherwise not be killed, but the same is true for the current "suicide" vs. "no suicide" rules. It is a valid set of rules

)

Or this?

To make a board play, place a stone on the board, then remove any opposing stones without a liberty.

To make a move, remove any opposing stones without a liberty, then make a board play, play a button, or pass.

That moves the removal of your suicide stones from the end of your own to the beginning of the opponent's turn. It's effect is identical to the usual suicide allowing rules.

Bill Spight · **#51**

HermanHiddema wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

If you want it even simpler:

Place a stone on the board
Remove any opposing stones without liberties.

With these rules, not only is suicide allowed, but the stone(s) placed into suicide will actually remain on the board! Any such stones will then be removed by step 2 of the opponent's next move!

(Yes, this means you can kill some groups that could otherwise not be killed, but the same is true for the current "suicide" vs. "no suicide" rules. It is a valid set of rules

)

Or this?

To make a board play, place a stone on the board, then remove any opposing stones without a liberty.

To make a move, remove any opposing stones without a liberty, then make a board play, play a button, or pass.

That moves the removal of your suicide stones from the end of your own to the beginning of the opponent's turn. It's effect is identical to the usual suicide allowing rules.

It does affect the superko rule, since the potentially repeated position is different. It allows a one point suicide, for instance.

Cassandra · **#52**

Bill Spight wrote:

着ける (tsukeru) is the meaning I had in mind.

My knowledge of Japanese is limited to Kanji you usually find in Go books. :-|

So it is difficult for me to grasp the meaning of a verb hidden in a part of a Kanji compound.

Thanks for your advice, which will be of some help to me, understanding the usage of this special Kanji in the books much better than before.

Bill Spight · **#53**

Cassandra wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

着ける (tsukeru) is the meaning I had in mind.

My knowledge of Japanese is limited to Kanji you usually find in Go books. :-|

So it is difficult for me to grasp the meaning of a verb hidden in a part of a Kanji compound.

Thanks for your advice, which will be of some help to me, understanding the usage of this special Kanji in the books much better than before.

Well, John Fairbairn is the real expert here.

BTW, I like this as a good online dictionary: http://dictionary.infoseek.co.jp/

palapiku · **#54**

HKA wrote:

I believe the axiom that a board position cannot be repeated is more central.

To what? How can a rule that most people don't use be central to something?

HKA · **#55**

palapiku wrote:

HKA wrote:

I believe the axiom that a board position cannot be repeated is more central.

To what? How can a rule that most people don't use be central to something?

I think most people, who play go, use the "ko" rule. If your point is most people do not play go, then I cannot argue with you.

I was simply offering a different way to look at the issue.

ChradH · **#56**

HKA wrote:

Harleqin wrote:

The liberties axiom is the most central axiom of Go. Herman's variant goes too far.

First of all, I am sure I will regret trying to skip a stone across this Jasiekian pond - I am no rule maven.

And I do not claim to be able to suggest the most elegant phrasiing for any of this.

That being said - I side with suicide.

I quote the above because I come at the issue from a different direction, a different axiom. I believe the axiom that a board position cannot be repeated is more central.

A stone can be placed anywhere, in any empty intersection, provided it changes the board position.

Therefore, a stone placed in a false eye, or a singular last remaining eye - a place without liberties - is allowed to stand because it kills the enemy stones, thus changing the board position.

Similarly, a stone connecting two friendly stones, as a ko threat, is allowed to be played - because by killing its two companions - it changes the board position.

It should go without saying, that placing a suicide stone in a libertyless and supported eye is, aside from pointless, illegal, because it is removed without changing the board position.

To me, playing in a place without liberties to kill the enemy, or to kill oneself, requires the same leap of understanding, and allowing one, and not the other seems inconsistent.

+1

ChradH · **#57**

palapiku wrote:

HKA wrote:

I believe the axiom that a board position cannot be repeated is more central.

To what? How can a rule that most people don't use be central to something?

They do if they respect the ko rule.

L.G.Hail · **#58**

Hey, if you want to kill your own stones and end your turn, I will gladly let you. If you can figure our how to benefit from it, you deserve to.

Having said that...

Do you consider suicide as a sacrifice?

Chew Terr · **#59**

Since the first post in this thread, I've wanted to post a strawman argument against all of this, just so that I could name the post 'Suicide is Painless'. Until this moment, I've managed to resist sharing my bad joke.

[/M.A.S.H. Reference]

palapiku · **#60**

I've never seen the ko rule expressed as "position can't repeat", outside of superko discussions. The ko rule is much more specific about which particular action is prohibited.

What's wrong with suicide?

Who is online