Go 'Suicide'?

[lobotommy]

@ Robert Jasiek

Have you noticed the way you quote and question or answer makes impossible to get a real conversation?

I wrote "suicide moves - they are natural".
You state that it doesn't resolve whether rules should allow or prohibit suicide moves.
Well, for me it's obvious. If it is natural one can play it. The end.

And second thing about stone scoring.
"Your romantic dream again; we do not use stone scoring!"
We? Who? I use it. I teach this way. I teach kids that more stones on the board wins. They start a game with even number of stones. And there is no any problem about "territory" definition. They came to it in natural way without my help. They know when and why it is stupid to play in other's territory, and when this territory occurs even if I did not define what territory is, and why they should not play a moves within.
When they pass the barrier of 20 kyu I think then I will present to them other ways to determine who is the winner, other ways of counting. But till then it is so easy and natural for them to fill the board there is no reason to abandon it. They know when someone lost before they put all the stones on the board so it is great for natural development of understanding of basics of go.

[RobertJasiek]

stone scoring [...] I use it. I teach this way.

For the special purpose of teaching go to newbies, stone scoring is a possibility, right. For describing how we - the regular players - play go, the closest you can get is area scoring, for which the 'natural' argument "just count the stones on the board" does not work.

[Toge]

But why would you?

- Suicide rule gives ko threats on some cases. In below diagram white plays "a" as ko threat, causing his own stones to be captured and leaving follow-up of "a".

$$B
$$ ------------------
$$ | a O X . . . . . .
$$ | O X X . O O . . .
$$ | X X . O . . . . .
$$ | O O O , . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

[Alguien]

there has to be a very strong reason to create or maintain any rule.

The reason is: to complete the definition of 'play'. The definition can be made complete by specifying what happens in case of one's own stones still without liberties after any removals of opposing stones. Specifying what happens in this case can be made by a) allowing suicide or b) prohibiting suicide.

"What happens to a group without liberties" is already specified. It's kind of the second rule of go, after "play in turns and don't move stones around".

How do you teach the classic one stone kill without saying "a group without liberties dies"?

[Bill Spight]

Well, I have resisted as long as I can, I guess.

I think that it is important to remember that weiqi, with its long, long history, existed without written rules until the mid-twentieth century. There were problems on rare occasions, the earliest one known being the question of Moonshine Life. Various rules emerged as needed, such as the one that Bent Four in the Corner is dead, which is implied in Chinese problems going back several centuries, and the one that a certain shape in the corner is worth Three Points without Capturing.

Once rules began to be written and formalized, new questions arose. For instance, what about the pass? Traditional rules had no concept of the pass. Games ended by agreement. In the famous Segoe-Takahashi dispute (See http://senseis.xmp.net/?TenThousandYearKo%2FrulesCrisis ) one question that arose was whether making a play was a right or an obligation.

My own guess is that the fact that games ended by agreement rather than by not making a play is that making a play was originally an obligation, which means that early go was a form of no pass go. Now, in no pass go there is a natural time to end play by agreement and score the game rather than to play on until the bitter end, and that is when the last dame is filled. Then, under one form of no pass go, a player's score is his territory plus captured stones minus the group tax. As it turns out, that appears to be the form of scoring for the oldest full game records that we still have. If early go was a form of no pass go, that also explains why prisoners are scored. (An earlier text indicates a form of stone scoring. It, too, makes no mention of passing.) BTW, suicide is problematic for no pass go because one player can extend the game indefinitely by suicide instead of passing, necessitating a new rule to prevent that. (That is true for area scoring, as well.)

If passing is allowed, is a pass a play? If so, does it lift ko bans? If the game ends by passing, how many consecutive passes are required? 2? 3? 4? These decisions affect not only rare occurrences, but every game. We have gone from a game that everybody knows how to play to one that nobody knows how to play.

[HermanHiddema]

there has to be a very strong reason to create or maintain any rule.

The reason is: to complete the definition of 'play'. The definition can be made complete by specifying what happens in case of one's own stones still without liberties after any removals of opposing stones. Specifying what happens in this case can be made by a) allowing suicide or b) prohibiting suicide.

"What happens to a group without liberties" is already specified. It's kind of the second rule of go, after "play in turns and don't move stones around".

How do you teach the classic one stone kill without saying "a group without liberties dies"?

So if I play here:

$$W
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . O X 1 X .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . O X 1 X .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

I then remove all groups without liberties and end up with this?

$$W
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . O . . X .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . O . . X .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

If you don't want that, you have to add a rule to specify the order. E.g. New Zealand rules specify that you first remove opposing stones without liberties, then remove your own stones without liberties.

Japanese say: Remove opposing stones without liberties, then if any of your stones have no liberties, the move is illegal.

Either way, you have to add a rule on top of "remove opposing stones without liberties" (well actually you don't, of course, but then you get DelayedSuicide or, if you do want the above to happen, you get MutualCapture)

[Alguien]

E.g. New Zealand rules specify that you first remove opposing stones without liberties, then remove your own stones without liberties.

Ok. In my head I've always understood it as New Zealand rules and that's how I've taught it.

I think the origin of it being intuitive, or natural, to me is that I think of stone removal a "YOU, remove the stones". i.e.: You play in your turn and remove white stones with no liberties and then, in his turn, white removes yours. Thus, establishing a natural priority.

It's never come up in a game I've played or witnessed so I guess I simply don't care enough. Maybe once I've reached a level where I can actually plan a game to win by half a point, I'll care more.

[HermanHiddema]

E.g. New Zealand rules specify that you first remove opposing stones without liberties, then remove your own stones without liberties.

Ok. In my head I've always understood it as New Zealand rules and that's how I've taught it.

I think the origin of it being intuitive, or natural, to me is that I think of stone removal a "YOU, remove the stones". i.e.: You play in your turn and remove white stones with no liberties and then, in his turn, white removes yours. Thus, establishing a natural priority.

It's never come up in a game I've played or witnessed so I guess I simply don't care enough. Maybe once I've reached a level where I can actually plan a game to win by half a point, I'll care more.

Probably it has, but you never noticed

E.g. life by OshiTsubushi isn't very rare, it happens regularly. And, of course, you may have played ot witnessed games where it was possible to create oshi-tsubushi but a player didn't, because it had no extra value due to suicide being illegal anyway.

And, of course, there are other common situations where it makes a difference.

E.g:

$$ a is a ko threat for white if suicide is allowed.
$$ -----------------------
$$ . . . X a O X . X O . .
$$ . . O O X X X X X O . .
$$ . . . . O O O O O O . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ a is a ko threat for white if suicide is allowed.
$$ -----------------------
$$ . . . X a O X . X O . .
$$ . . O O X X X X X O . .
$$ . . . . O O O O O O . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

[RobertJasiek]

a natural priority

Why should a priori the priority "remove opposing then own" be more natural than "remove own then opposing"?

[palapiku]

If you want suicide because it is more logical and less arbitrary, then you also have to allow single-stone suicide.

$$ white to play
$$
$$ .X.
$$ XaX
$$ .X.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ white to play
$$
$$ .X.
$$ XaX
$$ .X.[/go]

...and come on, that's just silly.

[hyperpape]

a natural priority

Why should a priori the priority "remove opposing then own" be more natural than "remove own then opposing"?

The (active) placed stone acts upon the (passive) stone it is placed next to, reducing the enemy stone's liberties to zero, thereby capturing it.

A player being taught the rules might think of mutual capture as a possibility (I think that's happened to me while teaching), but while I can't prove it, I strongly believe that no player would think that only the placed stone is captured, leaving the enemy stone on the board.

So far as axiomatized rules go, either alternative is equally sensible. So far as human psychology goes, only one is a live possibility.

[TheBigH]

If you want suicide because it is more logical and less arbitrary, then you also have to allow single-stone suicide.

$$ white to play
$$
$$ .X.
$$ XaX
$$ .X.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ white to play
$$
$$ .X.
$$ XaX
$$ .X.[/go]

...and come on, that's just silly.

So is doing this:

$$B herp derp hurr durr
$$------
$$|. X 1 X O .
$$|X X X X O .
$$|O O O O O .
$$|. . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B herp derp hurr durr
$$------
$$|. X 1 X O .
$$|X X X X O .
$$|O O O O O .
$$|. . . . . .[/go]

But the rules of go should not forbid stupid or pointless moves.

Besides, single stone suicide is exactly equivalent to rules where you hand over a stone for passing.

[palapiku]

single stone suicide is exactly equivalent to rules where you hand over a stone for passing.

Passing gives you an opportunity to pass in return, ending the game.

Standard go rules have a nice property that if your opponent is trolling - not interested in playing but just making silly moves - then you can make all your groups unconditionally alive and then just keep passing, and eventually your opponent will run out of valid moves. With suicide, they can keep on making dumb moves forever. It would give every angry little kid an easy way to try to drive you out of a won game through sheer annoyance. Superko would solve this, but most servers don't have superko and implementing it would be a serious change.

[RobertJasiek]

then you also have to allow single-stone suicide.

No. (Hint: there are also the ko rules.)

[RobertJasiek]

So far as human psychology goes, only one is a live possibility.

Ok, but this is about human psychology and not about what is natural on the board.