Just to have a bit of a discussion, I ask a hypothetical question. If you had to choose a ruleset that would be used for all games of Go worldwide from today on, which one would you choose and why? (If you don't choose, Go will never be played again)

I would probably go for AGA rules. They are logical, clear, allow playout of L&D and let even beginners solve just about any situation without a referee/3rd person. They also have a nice feature of allowing both Chinese and Japanese counting. If I could slightly alter them, I would make a pass lift ko bans.first two consecutive passes lift ko bans.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Double Button Go.

It uses territory scoring and pass stones. But, unlike AGA rules, White is not required to make the last pass. Instead, if the player who made the first pass also makes the last pass, she does not give a pass stone for the last pass. Also, the first pass lifts any ko or superko ban, just like a board play. Therefore, if the opponent plays the second pass immediately, the first passer can retake a ko or make a play that recreates a previous whole board position. Normally, games will end with three consecutive passes, with no pass stone for the third pass.

The reason it is called double button go is that the first pass is considered a button, or a play that loses 1/2 point. The reason for the button is so that it does not matter who takes the last dame. The last pass is also a considered a button, played so that it does not matter who makes the last pass. Having the last pass made without a pass stone if made by the player who made the first pass means that we do not have to use any buttons at all to achieve the same result.

The reason that the first button (pass) lifts a ko or superko ban is that otherwise the player would have to fill in his own territory or sacrifice a stone to lift a ko or superko ban. Those plays cost 1 point and the button is meant to be an alternative play that functions exactly like such plays, but only costs 1/2 point. Since they lift ko bans, it should, as well.

Double button go is like the AGA rules, with only small changes. It produces territory scoring, which many players like, only not Japanese-style scoring, because it counts territory in seki. It also gets rid of the rule whereby White must make the last pass, which some players find confusing and arbitrary.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

So double button Go is basically (disregarding ko) AGA's where rules: "2 passes end the game, if black was the last to pass, white must make an additional pass" are changed to "3 passes end the game, if the same person makes the first and the last pass of the game, (s)he doesn't give a pass stone for his/her final pass" and the game cannot be scored using area counting?


Why only the first pass?

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Because if any pass lifts a ko or superko ban, then you have to have another way besides consecutive passes to end play. Three pass rules are not enough. Such rules are possible -- see my Japanese style rules ( http://senseis.xmp.net/?SpightJapaneseStyleRules ) article 9, for example -- but they introduce unfamiliar and complicated procedures that avoid anomalies that occur only rarely. AGA rules can possibly end with a kind of Moonshine Life situation, although none has been known to occur in actual play. Having only the first pass lift ko or superko bans is enough to eliminate many or most such anomalies.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Oh, I see, a 4-pass rule would be nessesary. Funny thing is, that a 4-pass rule is actually implemented in the AGA ruleset, without the pass lifts ko ban rule

Edit: Never mind, this doesn't work.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Actually, why is the following sequence not allowed:
pass(lifts ban),pass, move, move, pass(lifts ban), pass, move, move, pass, pass, pass
I don't think there is a position in which this would be the correct way to play, but for the sake of the rules a fuseki move on 1-1 is valid, so why not this?

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Sounds like a waltz.

_________________
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).

Consider a double ko seki. If all passes lift ko or superko bans and two consecutive passes do not end play, one player can extend play indefinitely.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Arthur Murray calls it a foxtrot.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Seems like I nearly invented a new result: game annulled due to double ko
So 4 passes to end the game don't work

As long as you ignore the last pass.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

Actually, it's this.



My mom didn't pay for those ballroom dancing lessons for nothing.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I feel that anything beyond Japanese rules is just attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

First off, which japanese rules? Second, the Japanese rules are the most arbitrary of the bunch. For example bent 4 in the corner is dead always just because. Nevermind the actual situation. Not counting eyes in seki is at odds with what pretty much everyone else does, and they have a history of situational rulings based on politics rather than anything else.

I agree with everything on that list and I would like to add the trouble of explaining hypothetical play to non-players and beginners.

I've noticed a lot of people ask which ruleset, but have there actually been any contemporary disputes caused by a player assuming a different Japanese-style ruleset was used? There seems to be next to no difference between these rulesets.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

It's not just because, in chinese way of playing you can simply wait till the game is over and remove all ko threats in your area and then start the ko in the corner. Opponent has no ko threats and you kill it. Proves that bent four is dead.

Where is this documented?

I've heard this before, but I've yet to see it documented, so it not my understanding of AGA rules.

The guilty secret is that hypothetical play is why bent 4 in the corner is dead. :p


Well, if you're playing in a tournament it should be made explicit which rules, whether they are the current ones or another set. Hypothetical play, for example, is a relatively recent invention.

That said, if you are going to hold up "the japanese rules" as perfect, you really need to specify which ones, because they do have differences in how they handle edge cases. It's not like Dosaku came down the mountain with the ten Go commandments, which shall lead to a perfect contest or the wrath of God shall fall upon us. Prior to the 20th century, there were no rules, in the sense of a formal document of them, and the pass as a move did not exist. There are at least 2 codified rulesets, one from the 40s and the other from 1989, and even then when people say Japanese rules, they often mean "the rules I usually play by even though I haven't given them much serious consideration" without specifying what that actually means. To take an extreme, I could call my cat "Japanese rules" and just have disputes decided by playing from the position after she takes a few swipes at the stones on the board. There's nothing wrong with this for casual games, but if you are going to have a game where the outcome is taken very seriously, you need to be able to adjudicate in a non-arbitrary manner.

But sometimes there are unremovable ko threats, like a seki one side could successfully trade.



It's in the official rules document, but it only occurs following the resumption of play after a status dispute.

Bent four in the corner shows how arbitrary traditional territory scoring rules are. Since playing the situation out would cost points (removing ko threats is likely to involve playing in territory), it always has to be evaluated locally. Under an area ruleset, you can remove ko threats free of charge (after filling dame) so the situation can be played out and unremovable ko threats, which are part of the game, can alter the status.

_________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.” ― Robert Quillen

All rules are arbitrary. The reason to make that one is to avoid having to remove all the ko threats and get to the finish point faster.