Bill Spight wrote:tiger314 wrote:- rules ought to be simple and clear,
I think we all agree on this one.Bill Spight wrote:I think that we can all agree that the rules sho moould be clear. But simple? IMX, few games worth playing, childhood games aside, have simple rules. Furthermore, in informal play the unwritten rules are different from those in the rule book, and there are often local variants.
In go, a simple superko rule can impose a burden on human players. It is possible for the player who made a ko threat and took the superko to get lost and have to make another threat. It is also possible for a repetition to occur without the players noticing. What is the problem with rules that may be inelegant or complex but make it easy on human players?tiger314 wrote:The problem is that complex usually means hard on human players. I think the best example being the Ing ko rule. The ko section of Ing's rules has like 300 words (Robert's complete rules have only about 150) and is understood by only a handful of amateur players, and I have never seen anyone successfully implement it in a program. Why isn't the less than twenty words of not repeating previous positions enough? I know superko is quite tricky to apply, but with the exception of voiding/drawing a game with a complex ko, there is nothing simpler.
In 1977 or so I wrote a short article for the AGA Journal about the Ing rules at the time. Taiwan had adopted them. They were the same as what were later the Taylor-Trump rules, or almost so, and included a simple superko rule. In the article I recommended the use of pass stones, which I called bookkeeping stones. From what I have heard, around 1981 someone pointed out to Ing that a superko consisting of two identical double ko death positions meant that one of the "dead" groups had to be taken to leave only one double ko death, or one "dead" group could live. Apparently this was an unintended consequence for Ing. The superko rule had changed the game more than Ing had meant to do, making it more complex. (It is also likely that some pro players shared Ing's dismay and talked to him about that.) In terms that Ing later used, the superko rule turned two disturbing kos into one fighting ko. Ing revised his rules a number of times, and, as far as kos are concerned, they became more complex in order to make the game less complex. (IMO, he succeeded with the 1996 version of his rules, but they are not all that clear, because he attempted to derive his rules from general principles. Others have explained them more clearly. I imagine that the Ing rules could be programmed if you ignore the principles.) I do not like the Ing rules, but I agree in general and within limits with the idea of making the rules more complex or "illogical" in order to make them less complex for humans.
I agree that rules should not be as simple as possible, for example, it is unnesesary to force players to remove dead stones by play, an agreement option should be included. But I still don't see the point in replacing a simple rule that is somewhat difficult to apply, with an incredibly complex rule which is even harder to apply and fails when literally interpreted. With all due respect, I think Ing didn't realise that for his rules to became widely used, they would not only have to be suitable for professionals, but also amateurs.
And hats off to the inventor of the brilliant concept of pass stones
