I was thinking today about what my ideal ruleset would be, and I came to two preferences that I wish could coexist:

1.) It does not cost you a point to play inside your own territory. This way you do not need any Japanese-style rules to define what is alive and what is dead, because you can always play things out (in real, non-hypothetical play) when there is disagreement.
2.) Filling in dame is worthless. This seems like silly busy-work at the end of the game when you'd rather it just be over, not to mention the possibilities for silly blunders when you don't see an atari, etc.

At first it seems like these two ideas could not possibly be in the same ruleset, because the only way to let you play inside your own territory is to use area counting, but then dame is worth something. But is it possible?

I think You could implement a pass stones system that would take care of this. Have a rule that whenever you pass, you have to give your opponent 1 stone. I think it would make at most a 1 point difference in the score, so would only have a minor effect on strategy. Don't AGA rules already work something like this?

_________________
RedPoney Carpenter
kgs/igs/ogs/dgs: redponey
igolocal.net

Yes, you have to pay a prisoner to your opponent when you pass in AGA rules, and that is exactly why you have to play dame if you're going to use territory counting. By avoiding passing, you end up with one more point than you would have had. (The AGA rules were created so that you always get the same result no matter if you use area counting or territory counting.)

AGA Rules without White Passes Last does not work because that creates frequent pass-fights. WMSG2008 Rules come closer:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html
They do not produce exactly what you expect though.

Why do you want [two-sided] dame to be worthless? So that then the worthless dame are filled during the counting procedure anyway? Why do you want to avoid filling dame but not avoid playing worthless endgame before the dame filling (like symmetrical pairs of endgame moves)? Would it suffice for your taste if (possibly unless "dead" stones are removed by actual play) only the first dame of a previously odd number is filled (and gains a point) or why would it not?

You make a good point that the dame are generally filled to aid in counting, even when using the Japanese rules. But I usually play online, where that doesn't apply.Because if you leave miai endgame moves unplayed, the board just looks weird, and you don't "see" the score at a glance.I thought of that idea, too, but no, it still makes the end of the game annoying, since both players would still have to count all the dame to determine optimal play.

In case I wasn't clear, my main interest in rules is making the game as "user-friendly" as possible, not in creating the sort of hyper-efficiency that appeals to lovers of mathematics and programming (although I love both those things).

I suppose my dream is impossible...

EDIT: I looked at the WMSG08 rules, and I don't really understand how it resembles what I'm talking about. It seems like you still lose a point for not filling in dame when there are an odd number left.

In a way, Lasker-Maas rules do that. In the encore (after play has stopped) you can play inside your own territory without loss because you do so with your own prisoners. (If you do not have enough, you can exchange prisoners so that you do.)

Other rules, such as Ikeda territory rules and Spight territory rules, do the equivalent thing by using an encore in which passing costs one point, but each player makes the same number of plays or passes in the encore.

Double button go achieves a similar effect.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

If the endgame before the dame has been played and the endgame kos have been filled, then still teire prevent "seeing the score at a glance". So what do you want: no dame and no teire filling at all? No dame filling once all teire are filled?

Counting dame is as annoying as determining sizes of other endgame plays. So I do not agree with your view.

User-friendly is in the eye of the beholder. I find it user-friendly if there is only one way how to remove stones: By filling all their liberties. This is very user-friendly because a) one can see at a glance which intersection belongs to which player, b) the rules are simple, c) application of the rules is simple, d) problems about unusual shapes do not occur, e) it is fast (on average as fast as every other usually applied means; e.g., clicking on a server is not faster on average: two extra passes are needed, players waste some seconds thinking about whether time for passes is ripe, if the players make typos, then suddenly the clicking and undoing procedure becomes long). That it is also mathematically elegant is not an aspect of user-friendliness.

Please read "On the rules of Go" by Ikeda Toshio, available from gobase.org. It explains how his "Area III" rules, which are basically equivalent to the WMSG rules, achieve that you can pass without loss when only "dame" are left.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Ah! Yes, I like these methods of making it free to play inside your territory only during the encore. I especially like the idea of using the stones your opponent captured, because, assuming you have enough, you actually make it so there will be less to count.

The only niggling thing remaining that I don't like, though, is that moment at the end of a game when my opponent plays a stone to try to revive a dead group, and I can't tell easily whether it is still dead. Then I have to either (a) respond to make sure it stays dead, which costs me a point and could possibly even cost me the game; or (b) count the score to make sure I still win even if I respond; or, obviously, (c) read to determine whether a response is needed, but I might have to do this over and over as my opponent adds more stones.Yes, of course! I hope I haven't implied a belief in some kind of objective ideal. I'm not a rules expert. I'm just sort of wondering aloud.Thanks, I will.

Define "frequent". Personally, I have never witnessed one.

I like AGA rules.

_________________
Main Entry: zing·er Pronunciation: \ˈziŋ-ər\
1 : something causing or meant to cause interest, surprise, or shock
2 : a pointed witty remark or retort

You have not witnessed one because the AGA rules require White to pass last. Take that rule away, without replacing it, and you get pass fights.



You're welcome.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I don't understand this. I'm not sure what you mean, but it looks like either:
- Your opponent played in your territory to try and revive his dead group, in which case you can't possibly lose points by answering.
- Your opponent played a dame which *may* give his dead group a way to live, in which case deciding whether to answer is the entire point of the game.

In fact, altogether you seem to want a rule system suitable for your online play. Why does this even matter, since most servers don't make you fill the dame anyway? In real life you have to fill them to count the game, so having the ruleset say 'you don't need to fill dame' doesn't seem very worthwhile. Not filling them is actually fairly standard anyway, IME, with the players both passing then filling them quickly together.

This just promotes lazy reading at the end of the game. You can just say to yourself

"All the dame are filled and it is my move. I am too lazy to read out whether my opponent can do me any damage so I'll just play another move inside my territory instead of passing."

Such laziness deserves the loss of a point, as it does under Japanese rules. In my opinion any rule set which promotes such laxity is a bad set. This is why I don't like area rules except for beginners.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I'm talking about the first one. I realize that the exchange of our two moves doesn't change the score. But once he plays his stone, it does of course cost me a point to play inside my own territory to make sure he stays dead.

Because I was looking for a rules system that allows both of the two points I originally stated (the other one being the freedom to play out life-and-death positions that players disagree on). And yeah, I am definitely coming from the perspective of playing 95% of my games online.

I actually agree with you on this point. It's more interesting to have to be sure of whether reinforcement is needed. The thing is, you still have to be sure under area counting, because playing inside your own territory costs you what you would have gained from playing elsewhere, such as a dame point. If all dame have already been filled, then that means your opponent didn't see your weakness anyway. The case where it is correct to protect a weakness (such as where your opponent could do some series of ataris to capture a couple stones) only after all other possible moves have been exhausted seems to be a tiny percentage of games, no? EDIT: On second thought, you could play such a move whenever there are an even number of dame remaining. Still, it seems unusual to get to even that point before it becomes correct for your opponent to take advantage of your weakness.

p.s. Did I commit a faux pas by posting twice in a row? I thought it would be easier, since I'm responding to different people.

If you go back and look at my post it says "after all dame are filled". That last dame could be the crucial move which fills the last liberty and makes a defense necessary. Before that the opponent's play might not have worked. Admittedly, it is a small percentage of all games, but that does not obviate my point.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Aah, I didn't pick up on your implication that our hypothetical move might only work once all dame are filled. That's an excellent point, and it doesn't seem all that unusual. This renders even more appealing the rules options that use territory scoring but compensate for playing inside one's own territory during an "encore" phase, which seems like the best of both worlds.

Pardon me for butting in, but...

I am not sure I understand this whole discussion.
The question was simple: Can a rule set be devised such that (A) and (B).

I read post after post, and among all this verbiage, not even the esteemed rule gurus, who otherwise love discussing every quirk of every detail no matter how theoretical for hours to no end - not even they seem to be attempting to answer the question. Why? I find the question interesting and understand where the OP is coming from.

Personally, I do not see such rules being possible.
But I'm not a rules guru, so what do I know...
Would be nice if I was wrong, for once.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Well, what he seems to effectively ask for is a rule set where not only dame, but also teire are not worth anything. This would be a huge deviation from Go, something in the direction of Sunjang Baduk.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

DrStraw, under territory scoring rulesets, being lazy and defending without knowing whether it is necessary is possible and I do it regularly, especially in time trouble. E.g., when one is ahead by more than 1 point, one can make lazy defending moves. E.g., when there are 1+ adjacent dame, a group might already be in danger - not only with exactly 0 adjacent dame. So do you dislike not only area scoring but also territory scoring rulesets because BOTH allow laziness? Thought to the end, you would want a ruleset that requires a player to make perfect play moves during the entire game, starting from move 1 of the game.

Contrarily, I am happy with rules that allow the players to play correctly or to make mistakes at any moment because Go is a game of mental competition, which includes mistakes.

If players were required to play perfectly, then we might not play at all but would only be studying Go on a theoretical level until the puzzle would be solved centuries later.