Life In 19x19

What do you think about this modification to the capture rule?

It changes the nature of the game sufficiently that it is no longer go. Although it may be an interesting game in itself, it doesn't really add anything of value w.r.t go that makes me particularly want to play it.

HermanHiddema wrote:It changes the nature of the game sufficiently that it is no longer go. Although it may be an interesting game in itself, it doesn't really add anything of value w.r.t go that makes me particularly want to play it.

That reminds me of the people who didn't like hyperbolic geometry, and felt that it was no longer geometry. It took a new generation of mathematicians who didn't know any better to appreciate it.
Changing the capture rule is like changing the parallel postulate. It produces something different, but not something demonstrably inferior.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:It changes the nature of the game sufficiently that it is no longer go. Although it may be an interesting game in itself, it doesn't really add anything of value w.r.t go that makes me particularly want to play it.

That reminds me of the people who didn't like hyperbolic geometry, and felt that it was no longer geometry. It took a new generation of mathematicians who didn't know any better to appreciate it.
Changing the capture rule is like changing the parallel postulate. It produces something different, but not something demonstrably inferior.

I never claimed it was inferior (demonstrably or not), but I see no reason why it is superior to go either. Sometimes, you can fix a flaw and make a game better. I don't think this is the case here. It's simply a different game.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:It changes the nature of the game sufficiently that it is no longer go. Although it may be an interesting game in itself, it doesn't really add anything of value w.r.t go that makes me particularly want to play it.

That reminds me of the people who didn't like hyperbolic geometry, and felt that it was no longer geometry. It took a new generation of mathematicians who didn't know any better to appreciate it.
Changing the capture rule is like changing the parallel postulate. It produces something different, but not something demonstrably inferior.

Actually, since it removes ko fighting from the game, and all the subtleties involved with creating kos, maintaining/keeping track of threats beforehand as well, and so forth, that the resultant game really is inferior to the current version :p

usagi wrote:Actually, since it removes ko fighting from the game, and all the subtleties involved with creating kos, maintaining/keeping track of threats beforehand as well, and so forth, that the resultant game really is inferior to the current version :p

It introduces a different type of ko, actually. Suppose, in the following diagram, that connecting at a is important to white:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

So black tries to prevent it it by playing there:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

After black plays , white is not allowed to simul-capture at b, because that would repeat the position before . So white will have to make a ko-threat with , and after black responds with , white can capture at b:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ . . . O . .
$$ . X X O X X
$$ . X 4 B O .
$$ . . X O O .
$$ . X . . . .[/go]

simul-captures and itself, resulting in the following position, locally identical to the first diagram:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

now, black is not allowed to play at a with , since that would repeat the position before . So black will have to find a ko-threat, etc.

Hence, we have a ko fight...

I assume for this variation we use Chinese/Area counting. Trying to apply territory counting to this ruleset breaks my brain.

For example: As white passes a handful of stones to black, she can be heard saying, "here are your white prisoners that I captured for you..." illogical.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:It changes the nature of the game sufficiently that it is no longer go. Although it may be an interesting game in itself, it doesn't really add anything of value w.r.t go that makes me particularly want to play it.

That reminds me of the people who didn't like hyperbolic geometry, and felt that it was no longer geometry. It took a new generation of mathematicians who didn't know any better to appreciate it.
Changing the capture rule is like changing the parallel postulate. It produces something different, but not something demonstrably inferior.

I think there is a conceptual difference. You use geometry for a purpose, namely as a help to understand nature (science) or design useful gadgets (technology), etc. Hyperbolic geometry may (or may not) be a step forward to it.

However, go is already human defined. Of course, changing a detail in a rule may have a purpose like for example helping to simplify the game (e.g. bent four in the corner) thus making it more enjoyable. Or let's say it may facilitate solving the game as a whole (if that is the purpose).

But once you change such a basic rule, you do not achieve anything related to Go, but you just create another game. That's my opinion.

In a tight sense, each two different rulesets create different (go-like) games. In a broad sense, rules changes that do not alter relative playing strengths of all the go players can still be considered to be in the go-game family. Counter-example: Using a triangular grid would create a new game (although such is often called a go "variant").

In the example on the Sensei's page, who gets the white stone that's taken off the board?

kirkmc wrote:In the example on the Sensei's page, who gets the white stone that's taken off the board?

Lets assume area scoring so it doesn't matter

HermanHiddema, Joaz Banbeck, and Entropi, don't think of Simcap Go as a change, but instead taking a step back and inventing Go the right way (if only because of a simpler rule). The question is, is it the right way; is it deeper?

I think this variation has an even more fundamental implication: By removing both groups of stones, you are in effect allowing suicide. So the question is really: Should you be allowed to remove the last liberty from a group of your own stones, thus removing the whole group from play? If so, for example with New Zealand rules, then yeah, this idea makes a lot of sense.

As for whether it is "deeper" or not... I would say no, but neither is it less "deep."

Mr. Mormon wrote:HermanHiddema, Joaz Banbeck, and Entropi, don't think of Simcap Go as a change, but instead taking a step back and inventing Go the right way (if only because of a simpler rule). The question is, is it the right way; is it deeper?

1 A step back is also a change of position.
2 The RIGHT in the right way is a very very loaded term. What do you mean by Right?
3 Why is it deeper? an alternative would be more interesting and maybe sometime people will agree with you, but at the moment i find temporary go interesting enough.
4 Don't be so negative on the other posters. (By the Way, for me Herman showed that Simcap Go has probably a similar complexaty as go as we know it)

Maybe is Simcap Go the way they play go on other places in the univere (Some say that go is discovered not invented) but who will can say it is the right way.

But why would they not play:

- a version of Tibetan Go (immediate recapture forbidden)
- Sunjang Baduk (stones that are not part of a border are removed at the end of the game)
or another yet undiscovered version?

And even if they play the game game as us which rules do they use? (or are they as confused as us, and hoped that we could tell them )





About the Right side:
In the UK cars really drive on the wrong side of the road. and luckely there are not many who say that they are driving on the Right side.

1. I don't understand. I meant that one should not look at any ruleset with the bias that 'it's just a change to one we have already.' Pretend Go doesn't exist yet. Is simcap better?

2. & 3. I suppose there is no best version of Go unless we agree there exists a purpose to Go. I started this thread because I believe we should strive to make Go, a game unique in its simplicity (rules only) yet depth, simpler and deeper. So far, it doesn't seem likely that simcap achieves the latter.

4. I apologize if I have been negative, but how?