Life In 19x19

Maybe this has been suggested before. Then it must have a name and a reference.
I propose the ultimate simple counting system for go. I think it reproduces the game of go as we know it in 99.xxx% of the games; having a simple ruleset at the same time.
Suicide, capture,handicap, komi and ko rules are chosen independently.
Rules:
1. B gets 181 + K black stones, W gets 181 - K stones or one less according to the komi rule. K is an integer fixed by the komi rule. Removed stones are returned to the owner.
2. The player who has all his stones at on the board after his turn has won the game.
3. On his turn a player should pass or add a stone. The first phase ends after two consecutive passes. Then the game enters the second phase. After two consecutive passes in the second phase the last passer has lost the game.
4. In the second phase there is no capture, ko or suicide. The board only changes by the addition of single stones with the restriction that players are only allowed to play adjacent to a friendly stone. (where it may touch an unfriendly stone as well.)

Questions:
1. Are such rules proposed before. If so: where, under what name?
2. Would the game be significantly different in the playing phase under these rules compared to the usual rulesets used nowadays.
3. Would the results differ significantly.
4. Any suggestions for better formulation, clarification?

edit1: replaceded "at" with "on"
edit2: in rule 1 I added a sentence about removed stones.

cyclops wrote:2. The player who has all his stones at the board after his turn has won the game.

With the phrasing of rule 2, it would seem any play by black results in his win. All of his stones are "at" the board and his turn has ended. I think I get what you mean, but rules should be extremely literal. Could you please elaborate what you mean?

You would have to actually surround and remove all dead stones from inside your territory in phase one...

Twitchy Go wrote:

cyclops wrote:2. The player who has all his stones at the board after his turn has won the game.

With the phrasing of rule 2, it would seem any play by black results in his win. All of his stones are "at" the board and his turn has ended. I think I get what you mean, but rules should be extremely literal. Could you please elaborate what you mean?

Is my english such bad? I mean: All his 170+ stones on the board.

cyclops wrote:

Twitchy Go wrote:

cyclops wrote:2. The player who has all his stones at the board after his turn has won the game.

With the phrasing of rule 2, it would seem any play by black results in his win. All of his stones are "at" the board and his turn has ended. I think I get what you mean, but rules should be extremely literal. Could you please elaborate what you mean?

Is my english such bad? I mean: All his 170+ stones on the board.

replacing at with on was the intuitive fix. I just wanted to make sure : )

palapiku wrote:You would have to actually surround and remove all dead stones from inside your territory in phase one...

That might be boring. It does not affect the score though, every stone placed is a gain. Counting under current rules is also boring. Resigning is a short cut. In on line games players may agree on a automated procedure even before the end of the first phase.

This seems more complex than "score 1 point for every intersection surrounded by stones of your color", and if I'm understanding correctly gives the same result. What am I missing?

emeraldemon wrote:"score 1 point for every intersection surrounded by stones of your color"

Such a scoring changes the game dramatically. If you do not want to suggest stone scoring, then write "occupy or surround".

***

If simple counting rather than simple scoring is the goal, then you can use, e.g., 1) fill, then remove pairs of one black and one white stone each or 2) fill, then rearrange the stones on the board so that almost one half is black and one half is white. A different approach simple for stone scoring is prisoner counting: http://senseis.xmp.net/?PrisonerCountingForStoneScoring

I don't think I'll ever understand why people feel the need to make scoring simpler. Japanese scoring is dead easy and Chinese scoring is even easier.

Even if this scoring system didn't require you to play about 111 extra moves in due tedium (based on an average of 250 moves a game, which is the number used to judge the time allowed by different, linear time systems), it would all fall apart the second one of the players accidentally dropped a stone under the table. Also, you'd need to count the stones before you begin to ensure that black does, indeed, have exactly 181 stones and white exactly 180.

Let's put this down on the hallowed list of silly ideas, move on and play more Go.

Charlie wrote:Japanese scoring is dead easy

"Easy" enough to be understood after centuries of failures, then 10 years of my preliminary studies and 11 months of my more than full-time work;)

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003com.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcflaw.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcmod.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html

Up to now people find "my" rules tedious,laborious and time consuming.
No complaints were made that these rules are too complex or would change the game too much or. ( I am not sure I understood Robert correctly though).
To address the first issue one might allow for an early compromise in which the players agree on the life and death status of their groups after which the captured stones are removed and the remaining board is filled up as in the second phase. This can be done in a few seconds as no thinking is needed, apart from some dame and seki points. My rules are intended to fall back on if no compromise is possible and to explain the game to beginners.

Charlie wrote:.... it would all fall apart the second one of the players accidentally dropped a stone under the table .....

Let's put this down on the hallowed list of silly ideas, move on and play more Go.

Please do so. Feel free to skip this section of the forum. ....
If at game end the loser has few stones left he will easily notice if stones are missing. Otherwise it doesn't matter.

cyclops wrote:

palapiku wrote:You would have to actually surround and remove all dead stones from inside your territory in phase one...

That might be boring.

As a side issue, attempts to get rid of boring phases has resulted in lots of problems in Go rules.

cyclops wrote:Maybe this has been suggested before. Then it must have a name and a reference.
I propose the ultimate simple counting system for go. I think it reproduces the game of go as we know it in 99.xxx% of the games; having a simple ruleset at the same time.
Suicide, capture,handicap, komi and ko rules are chosen independently.
Rules:
1. B gets 181 + K black stones, W gets 181 - K stones or one less according to the komi rule. K is an integer fixed by the komi rule. Removed stones are returned to the owner.
2. The player who has all his stones at on the board after his turn has won the game.
3. On his turn a player should pass or add a stone. The first phase ends after two consecutive passes. Then the game enters the second phase. After two consecutive passes in the second phase the last passer has lost the game.
4. In the second phase there is no capture, ko or suicide. The board only changes by the addition of single stones with the restriction that players are only allowed to play adjacent to a friendly stone. (where it may touch an unfriendly stone as well.)

Questions:
1. Are such rules proposed before. If so: where, under what name?
2. Would the game be significantly different in the playing phase under these rules compared to the usual rulesets used nowadays.
3. Would the results differ significantly.
4. Any suggestions for better formulation, clarification?

edit1: replaceded "at" with "on"
edit2: in rule 1 I added a sentence about removed stones.

Answers:
1. These rules are mostly equivalent to Ing rules. Differences:
- Under Ing rules, the komi is handled slightly differently: white gets to place 4 stones inside black territory, which is equivalent to a K value of 4 for your rules.
- Seki with an odd number of shared liberties gives the first player to fill an extra point under your rules.
- Ing rules filling can be done in parallel, which is much faster.
2. It would be mostly equivalent.
3. It is theoretically possible to construct positions with large dead, but uncaptured, groups allowing a player to win while far behind under other rules.
4. Suggestions:
- I assume that captured stones are returned to their owner? Otherwise a single capture makes the winning condition under rule 2 impossible for the captured player.
- If stones are indeed returned, then the winning condition in phase two is equivalent to that under rule 2 (the first player to have all his stones on the board passes first, hence the other player loses).

EDIT: Ah, captured stones are indeed returned to the owner, as mentioned under rule 1.

Hey Cyclops! Your scoring method seems simple, yet, like some have already commented, boring.

About the ruling though, should White not get 181 - 0.5K and black 181 + 0.5k? The difference in stones is then equal to komi. Right now, the difference is 2 times komi.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Charlie wrote:Japanese scoring is dead easy

"Easy" enough to be understood after centuries of failures, then 10 years of my preliminary studies and 11 months of my more than full-time work;)

Actually, Japanese rules have been understood perfectly for centuries. It is just that that understanding included the option of having a referee decide disputes. The modern approach, where we want an algorithm that can perfectly decide every possible situation, is not inherently better, IMO, it is just more popular under current cultural norms.