I've always had a preference for positional superko over situational superko because it requires a bit less memorization, and since using one or the other doesn't seem to make any difference in practice, the easier rule should be preferable. However, is this really so? Does anyone know of any position where positional and situational superko yield different results?

According to Robert Jasiek, "[t]he actual difference of positional super ko and situational super ko as to occuring positions is rather small. Very few distinguishing examples are known."

Intuitively, one would be tempted to say that there are no such positions because, if the position after a player's board play is the same as a previous position where it was the player's turn instead, then that play would seem equivalent to passing. But, of course, it's not completely equivalent, since running through the cycle will cause the positions in it to be added to The List...

I am not a fan of the superko idea as it seems too contrived. But that is another issue and I don't want to hijack the thread by starting that discussion.

The reason I bring it up is that it seems against the spirit of the Oriental origins of the game as I understand them and I was wondering if any of the Asian countries use it regularly in their professional games.

_________________
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).

A very simple case is "sending two returning one" - here PSK vs SSK doesn't matter for the result but only for the game tree.

A real difference for the result is "sending three returning two".
http://senseis.xmp.net/?SendingThreeReturningTwo

These positions seem to be really rare, I wonder how many types exists and how many are already known...

To sleepy to check now, but PSK/SSK look at sending-2-returning-1 starting from an unstable state. NSK/SSK could have been moonshine-life.

Oh, and molasses ko, of course.

Technically China has it in the rules but it seems in practice they defer to no result.

I guess I should clarify that I'm always referring to Chinese-style rules (area-scoring, no suicide). This said:



Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see how PSK and SSK yield different results in those cases:





Am I missing something?


Could you clarify this? I don't know what you mean. I thought the result of sending-2-returning-1 was the same under PSK, SSK and NSK.

Molasses ko: PSK: fight for last tenuki, SSK: coexistence.

Sending-2: start from one of these positions:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | X O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Sorry for what may be a really stupid question (I don't know much about superko and am too old and lazy to learn), but why aren't the White passes (White 6 in the first example and White 10 in the second example) illegal under SSK? They recreate a preexisting position with the same person to play.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

PSK/SSK/NSK are meant to restrict plays, but not passes.

Luigi, in the "sending 3 returning 2" example after white passes with 5,
then black could/should also pass with 6 (instead of playing in the corner).
Now the game is over and black is alive.

edit: It depends a bit on the used rule if the game is really over (and thus black lives) after white and black passes with 5 and 6. For example with a three pass rule to end the game it wouldn't work.

Ah, of course. Thanks.

I see. Under PSK, at the game's end, whoever passes first loses the molasses ko, and so a pass fight ensues. EDIT: And, under SSK, Black 9 in my diagram should be a pass, thus ending the game with coexistence.


I think this might be wrong, though. If White takes the corner point at the first opportunity, Black dies regardless of the superko rule used, right?

For the first diagram, I'm thinking something like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B passes, at . Black dies
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | 1 O . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 2 X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Hi,
here is a example where PSK and SSK lead to a different result if you foolishly start the cycle.