Dear Robert, thanks for your annotations.
RobertJasiek wrote:
- I assume that you also want to use some basic ko rule.
Some general notes in this context.
- "Ideas" is no synonym for "explicit rule text".
- I do not see any sense in discussing the colour of the surface. So I will not give definitions of elements (e. g. "board", "move"), which had not been the source for troubles with the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules, for example, in my understanding. And I suppose that there will be people, who could give better definitions than mine in the sense what you seem to understand as "definition".
- This will be true for "Ko", too. I have not realised yet that there might be any problems to understand that a player must not immediately recapture a stone, which just captured one of his / her stones.
Further quotes of your posting will be written in Blue.
- You fail to state in general how "neither victory nor defeat" compares to scores for the sake of making strategic decisions: You make the same mistake as J1989 of creating undecidable strategy in positions like one play before either double ko seki or triple ko."Score" is a term, which will become relevant in "Count".
"Recurrence of positions" occurs in "Play".
So the player can make up his / her mind if he / she wants "neither victory nor defeat" or wants to play on and to stop playing Triple Ko, for example.
- The "will result" with the implication "occurs or has occurred" is an elegant tournament rules method for the purpose of implementing no-result-like rules provided intention of that implication has been made clear. From the text alone, it is not clear enough. E.g., it is unclear what happens if both repetition and a score result have occurred; which takes precedence? See above. There can be no coexistence of "recurrence of positions" and "score".
What tournament rules will say about "recurrence of positions", is a different kettle of fish.
- Your rule means that also cycles with unequal numbers of prisoners removed during them lead to "neither victory nor defeat". I.e., a player being behind by potential scoring but with the option of starting a sending-2-returning-1 cycle might do that. Well, who cares when it comes down to your preference - but do you really think that your rules would find lots of friends under such circumstances? See
Cassandra wrote:
I will use "situation" as compound for "player to move" & "arrangement of stones on the board" & "difference of captured stones".
So "sending-2-returning-1" does not create a "recurrence of situations". Perhaps you mixed it up with area-oriented rules.
- Suppose a sending-2-returning-1 is on the board and has not been played in during the Play phase. Applying your rule during Evaluation means that evaluation is interrupted by the creation of a "neither victory nor defeat". Presumably this is your intention, is it?No, it is not. There is no "interruption" in determining the status of a chain of stones.
If you encounter a repetitive sequence during "Evaluate", you will neither be able to have the status "2-eyed" for the chain nor can you prevent this chain from being captured.
- "2-eyed" you describe as "is the compound of 'already has two eyes (minimum)' or 'can get two eyes' or 'can be captured, but the complete captured shape can be filled again with stones, which will become part of a 2-eyed group'".
- You introduce 3 status types: 2-eyed, completely removable, everything else. I think it should be clear that "2-eyed" means "has 2 eyes or more". You can reduce every multi-eyed group to a 2-eyed one by closing the remaining eye-points by your own. It's just a matter of practicability to realize that you can give the status "2-eyed" to every chain that can be connected to an already "2-eyed" one.
May be that it is more difficult to make a computer program realising a "secure" connection than to make it reducing something to only 2 single eye-points.
In my understanding you have to think about 2 "status" only. "Everything else" can be described verbally, but is no explicit status on its own.
May be that I have to sharpen the wording.
The status "2-eyed" is clear, but there are two options for the second status. In the moment, I'm absolutely not sure which one might be better for general application (or understanding).
- You can look for chains, which cannot be captured (and can be found in what is known as Seki, for example) or can be captured, but the opponent is unable to occupy all of the chain's primary points (what can be found in "x points without capture", for example).
- You can look for chains, which can be captured and the opponent is able to occupy all of the chain's primary points.
Both options result in the other one being "everything else". May be that the first one will be more appropriate when Ko shapes are involved.
In my opinion one has to be aware about the equivalence of (single) "stone" and "chain". It must make a difference, whether the primary points of a chain, after it has been captured, will be occupied again by stones of only one colour or by stones of both sides. The latter cannot happen with a single stone, so both cases must not be mixed up.
- What is "local"? Does it even matter?In my opinion there are two fundamental different approaches for designing a rule set. "Local" is the approach I prefer. May be I'm too old to become fascinated by the other one, "global". The "local" approach usually can be found in territory-oriented rule sets, the "global" approach is typical for area-oriented rule sets. To stress it a second time: It is possible to generate a consistent rule set with each of both approaches.
"Local" will result in a kind of "borders" generated by what usually is understood as "living groups". None of these separated parts of the board will be influenced by what happens in another one.
If we put "basic Ko" aside, this will be true even during "Play".
- "the compound of" might mean "a connected part of the board". It is unclear whether this is the intended meaning."compound of A & B & C" = "A or B or C".
- "already has two eyes (minimum)" is known as "2-eye-formation".
- "can get two eyes" in the context of "already has two eyes (minimum)" might intended to be a terribly confusing alternative expression for "can be forced to be transformed into a 2-eye-formation". Else define "eye"! (You will notice that eye must be defined via first defining 2-eye-formation.) As written above, I will not open a theatre of war about definitions and / or wording.
- "can be captured, but the complete captured shape can be filled again with stones" creates a new design problem: Suppose we have a shape with 2 unfilled intersections, stones are captured from the shape, then a 2-eye-formation is created with 2 (partly or fully) DIFFERENT unfilled intersections. Why do you create such a new problem?Perhaps you can show an example ?
It seems important to me that all of the chain's primary points will become part of something "2-eyed". Its 2 eye points must be somewhere else, so I think that it will be possible to fill the chain's primary points completely.
- Why do you introduce such a complicated life concept as "2-eyed"?! "2-eye-formation" is much simpler: It does not need any subtypes. If "2-eye-formation" is the meta-type of what I defined and is understood widely by the public, there will be no problem.
- You should study the everything else type carefully. Undesired side effects might occur. In particular, capturable-2 strings should be studied carefully.Perhaps you can show an example ?
- AFAICS, sekis do not have territory. You seem to offer a rather elegant treatment for that."Territory" is only within what has been determined as "alive".
But perhaps you will find territory, where you did not expect it.
The process of "Evaluate" is "determine the status of all chains" (
ONCE !!!), thereafter combine the results (
ONCE !!!).
So chains of stones that have got the status "alive" during "Evaluate", will not suddenly become "dead", after some other "dead" stones have been taken off the board (what can happen only during "Count"). Perhaps the result of handling some very special positions will resemble what could be expected after "resolving by actual play" (during "Evaluate", typical for area-oriented rules) much more than with the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules.
I think, some displeasure with the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules handling of positions, which cannot be resolved by actual play (during "Play"), results from a certain mixture of "Evaluate" and "Count", despite some inexactness in the rules' text.
Harleqin's example of Honinbo Shusai's open Ko would have a result as follows.
- The open point is no territory (in the "local" context, the opponent can capture and connect during "Evaluate").
- If there is a cutting point "behind" the Ko (at which the connection to an already "2-eyed" group would be possible at any time), there will be no need to fill the Teire. This Teire will count as point of territory.
- Unlike J1989 and J2003, you use a local maximal instead of a local minimal requirement for life. Presumably you find this aesthetically appealing but thus far it is very risky because Chris Dams's proof of the relation between J2003-life and WAGC-life relies on the local minimal requirement. Until you prove the same for the local maximal requirement (if such an equivalence exists at all...), you do not achieve the same powerful universal characterization of life. Yours would be a weaker form of life. This does not make your construction attractive (yet). Do not know what you want to say.
I think, the way to get to know what is "alive", is clearer than in the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules.
- Needless to say, you make the standard mistake of using grammar ("can") instead of contents ("can force").See above about "wording".
- Provide examples!Perhaps you can name some of your favourites among the 1989 Nihon Kiin examples ?