Life In 19x19

Javaness2 wrote:suicide would add almost nothing to the theory of Go.

It has added a lot of excitement for those enjoying study of go rules theory and its application.

Annihilist wrote:There is no need for such a rule.

This and the contrary have been discussed earlier in this thread.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:suicide would add almost nothing to the theory of Go.

It has added a lot of excitement for those enjoying study of go rules theory and its application.

Yes, but only that.
Meaning, to be blunt, the rules minutiae are not big parts of the culture. People learn life and death. Opening theory. Study pro games. Play. Promote. Organise tournaments. Look at history. Suicide added a little to some rules theory.

Javaness2 wrote:Suicide added a little to some rules theory.

After you make efforts to explain non-rules-level theory, you conclude that suicide added little to rules-level theory? Maybe you have wanted to conclude that - so far - it adds relatively little to non-rules-level theory?

No, I didn't, since placing suicide into the rules has demonstrably not had any impact on how people play the game.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:Suicide added a little to some rules theory.

After you make efforts to explain non-rules-level theory, you conclude that suicide added little to rules-level theory? Maybe you have wanted to conclude that - so far - it adds relatively little to non-rules-level theory?

Just a quick linguistic note: There is a difference between "added little" and "added a little". The first implies a meaning like "nothing significant", while the second implies a meaning more like "something relatively small" (i.e. "small" relative to the existing amount of rules theory, or small relative to the amount of theory added by other rules, such as e.g. various ko rules)

Occham's Razor:
is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses,
the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

I assert for a moment that William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) would have liked Go
and then he would have especially liked Go with a rule set not mentioning suicide at all (i.e. = allowed).
Appeal to authority in speculation, I know.
Nevertheless, it makes a flashy argument, and ...

... why would someone like to have rulings on individual positions?
Let creativity prevail!

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

HermanHiddema wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:Suicide added a little to some rules theory.

[..] you conclude that suicide added little to rules-level theory? [..]

[..] There is a difference between "added little" and "added a little". The first implies a meaning like "nothing significant", while the second implies a meaning more like "something relatively small" (i.e. "small" relative to the existing amount of rules theory, or small relative to the amount of theory added by other rules, such as e.g. various ko rules)

Vgl. »fügt wenig hinzu« vs. »fügt ein wenig hinzu« (for a corresponding German example).

I also believe that often the use of »little« does not really mean a small amount but can rather be large or have a large effect. Somewhat subtly embedded ironical understatement which, because of our mostly “subconscious” (BTW I prefer “ignored” for “subconscious”: we are educated/trained to ignore those “subconscious” things) and involuntary communication, leads to misunderstandings all too often, and drives children and other people crazy (as in “insane”, or “dysfunctional”). Small differences can have large effects.

Tommie wrote:Occham's Razor:
is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses,
the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

I assert for a moment that William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) would have liked Go
and then he would have especially liked Go with a rule set not mentioning suicide at all (i.e. = allowed).

I don't think you have read the whole thread. This was discussed before.
The sad reality is, neither the ruleset with suicide nor the one without is simpler with the other. Each has to make an extra assumption compared to the other.

palapiku wrote: I don't think you have read the whole thread. This was discussed before.
The sad reality is, neither the ruleset with suicide nor the one without is simpler with the other. Each has to make an extra assumption compared to the other.

Correct, I have not read the thread.

However, the ruleset with one rule less (the one about suicide) is exactly that:
simpler by one rule !

And I could state that without reading all previous comments,
because it is self-evident.

*sigh* This is why you read threads.

viewtopic.php?p=120351#p120351. (You may also find it useful to read this: https://xkcd.com/1112/).

Tommie wrote:

palapiku wrote: I don't think you have read the whole thread. This was discussed before.
The sad reality is, neither the ruleset with suicide nor the one without is simpler with the other. Each has to make an extra assumption compared to the other.

Correct, I have not read the thread.

However, the ruleset with one rule less (the one about suicide) is exactly that:
simpler by one rule !

And I could state that without reading all previous comments,
because it is self-evident.

You really should have read the thread

Here's four major ways to deal with capture/suicide:

1. Play stone. Remove any opposing stones without liberties. If you stone has no liberties, the move was illegal. (traditional)
2. Play stone. Remove any opposing stones without liberties. Remove any of your own stones without liberties. (NewZealandRules)
3. Play stone. Remove any opposing stones without liberties. (DelayedSuicide)
4. Play stone. Remove any stones without liberties (SimultaneousCapture)

The New Zealand style suicide rule is not really simpler than disallowing it. Simpler rules exist, but are not played anywhere.

Thanks for that, Herman. I had never thought of delayed suicide before.

since it was brought up:

palapiku wrote:As pointed out before, suicide actually requires an additional rule, which is that when placing a stone you first remove stones of opposite color with no liberties, and then stones of your own color with no liberties.

Regular go does not have that rule.

Regular go actually has two rules regarding this.
1: if you play a stone that starts with no liberties that gains liberties in the process of capturing opponents stones, it is not removed.
2: rule forbidding suicide

go permitting suicide has one
1: if you play a stone that starts with no liberties that gains liberties in the process of capturing opponents stones, it is not removed.
Tommie is infact correct, although he probably should have read the thread

Counting rules is extremely hard--you need a set vocabulary and/or restrictions on the complexity of the rules (otherwise, you just concatenate all your rules, and presto, any game has just one rule!), and there is no guarantee that two distinct vocabularies, the ordering produced will be the same.

What Palapiku's example strictly shows is that permitting suicide is not necessarily simpler than banning it. However, in a vocabulary I find natural (but I'm not as good with rules as some people on here), I'd say:

Standard go:
1. Stones are eligible for removal when they (or their containing groups) have no liberties.
2. After playing a stone, one removes all enemy groups which are eligible for removal.
3. One may not play a stone which would be eligible for removal after completing phase 2.

Suicide go:
1. Ditto.
2. Ditto.
3. One then removes any remaining stones which are eligible for removal.

Thus, complexity is even.

As I pointed out earlier, it's a fact about our psychology that we tend to assume something about the ordering question Palapiku raised, whether or not it's stated. But if what we're really after is logical/mathematical simplicity, we want to be explicit about these things.