I saw Roberts idea but i wanted to hava a very different ruleset.
(I was already thinking about this before this post but Robert was ahead of me)


Rules:

- No suicide.
- A move is either a play or a pass.
- A succession of three passes ends the game. (see below)
- Only groups that are pass alive (Benson alive) are alive. (therefore suicide is not allowed)
- Natural komi (I like draws)
- Area scoring.


- seki, superko and all that lot -> loss for the stronger or black player (depending if one player is supposed to be stronger)

addition for transforming them in to territory scoring:

- two button go (half point for the player who passes first and half a point for the player who passes last)


Three passes because of positions that can be
player A : takes ko
player B : Pass
Player A : Pass (with 2 passes the game would end now)
player B : can retake ko.

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

So that we do not have to work it out ourselves, can you please explain the strategic consequences of the buttons?

Two Button Go is a combination of Button Go and Reverse Button Go (links to SL Articles, which explain the consequences in some detail).

In short:

• Button go turns an area score into a territory score
• Reverse button go removes pass fights from rules with pass stones (AGA without the "White passes last" rule, for example)

Combined, you can make a rule set that has a territory score, while using pass stones to allow playing out disputes on the board. So the evaluation phase needs no special extra rules, you can use simple "Either agree on status, or play it out" rules.

I believe that it is reasonable to require White to make the last move, so that both players have made the same number of moves.

I also think that any number of passes should not automatically end the game. Instead, a pass should be seen as an opportunity for the players to agree on the end of the game.

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

Although reasonable, I don't think it has any particular advantages, and is somewhat unusual.



Yes, although clear rules about passing should probably be used in case of disputes.

With area scoring, the first button generally makes it irrelevant who gets the last Japanese dame. With territory scoring and pass stones, the second button makes it irrelevant who makes the last pass (with correct play).

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

But that is a problem you cannot expect correct play any idea of an other solution than ending with 3 passes (a fourth pass to even out?)

i think 3 at least is nescesary and it should be limmited (the last pass is a half point the one before it nothing) (or using the AGA variant the last pass cost 1/2 other cost 1 so it is better to have the last one)

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

I do not find it any more unusual than having another button, and I think that it is somewhat simpler in practice than juggling another button.



Rule: Whenever a player passes, the players may agree on the end of the game, using any shortcut that does not alter the score. If they do not agree, they play on.

What kind of disputes could arise?

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

See my first post (why 3 passes) another question is of course is Black allowed to retake the ko after 2 passes? (in my idea he is)

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

Yes, I agree. Buttons are even more unusual. What I like about two button go is the fact that you can rephrase it as:

If the same player makes the first and last pass, that player gets an extra point

This is because normally, with a two pass end, the buttons cancel out because both players got one. Since 99.9% of games end with two passes, this rule will only come into effect when one player attempts to start a pass fight, which will be pointless.

The most usual exception to the normal two pass game end is: Take Ko, Pass, Fill Ko, Pass, Pass. But in that case the buttons still cancel out. With pass stones it would be even better to play: Take Ko, Dame, Fill Ko, Pass, Pass. Because the dame does not lose a point the way a pass does. Playing like that puts the game in the category "normal two pass end" again.

Also, with the two pass end, the two pass stones cancel out, so in 99.9% of games there is neither a need to juggle buttons, nor to juggle pass stones. Like this, the only time when pass stones will really come into play will be in case of resolving disputed stones' status.

So with these rules, the game will end in a way that will feel natural to players around the world.




Not much, though players do have the option of never agreeing to end the game, despite passing themselves. But that's really more into the territory of calling a referee and having said player expelled from the tournament

No, I do not think that any number of passes could lift a ko ban.

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

A very natural consequence of super ko. If both players pass, then recapturing would still repeat the earlier position, hence it is disallowed.

That does create the question is it the same position?




in the position before Player A took the ko he (presumabbly ) was allowed to do so.
after B retakes A isn't allowed to take the ko so if it is the same position depends if the koban situation is part of the position.




But then the problem seeps into a scoring problem. Suppose territory scoring : is the empty point a point of territory, and if so why not?


Maybe a solution (still holding on to the idea that passes lift ko bans)is that players are not allowed have three consecutive passes in a row. so player B can play a stone on the board or end the game. But he is not allowed to pass. Not very elegant maybe ending with 4 passes is easier.

so after s pases a

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

Yes. Position is a well-defined concept. If you want passes to lift (super)ko bans, then you should say so in your rules explicitly.



Player B retaking the ko is illegal, unless you have specifically declared it legal. Ko bans are not part of the position (as the term is normally used).



It is a choice. With pass stones, this problem mostly disappears. When passing costs a point, then you can also play in your own, or your opponent's, territory for the same effect, but with the added effect that the position changes and the ko ban thus disappears.

I see no problem. An open ko mouth can be a point, if the other player cannot force the first to connect. Of course, all the "dame" are potential ko threats for the attacker, so this is a rare situation.

Besides, this also reconciles territory with area scoring, where the ko master can delay filling until after all single points ("dame") have been taken.

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

The question is what happens after all dame have been taken. Is filling then prescribed for the komaster?

maybe i just add open ko to the last rule.

New completer easy rules overview

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

Under area scoring, it would not make any difference whether the ko mouth is filled or not (of course, since any move, while being worthless, would threaten to capture the ko, it is likely safer to fill it as soon as such a worthless move occurs). Under territory scoring, any (gote) play after all dame have been filled would threaten the ko capture, but since such a move also costs a point, the defender can then protect without a loss.

There is no need to prescribe anything for this; optimal play follows directly from the basic rules.



I do not understand this.

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

We disagree here. to me you expect that each player will at the end play optimal, I lack this optimism (especially when i am one of of them

I think the rules should not expect optimal play in any way.






The background of my rules.

They are made for a (still only fictional) computer program that can reach a perfect strategy on a small board.

I was puzzeling what would be easy and fair rules for this program. and came to the following.

Territory scoring is more complicated than area scoring. (for area scoring only the end position is important, for territory scoring you also need the game history) so area scoring.


Testing of a group is alive is easiest done by testibng for being Benson-pass alive. therefore living means benson alive.

I guess this program can prevent seki, superko, and other problematic situations therefore it is no problem to just declare the program the loser , if they exsist at the end of the game.

(Seki's are for computer programs difficult to recognise, so again just treat them as losses.)


If normal players play eachother and one of the difficult situations is created, the easiest way out is just to declare one of the players as loser. and Black having the advantage of the first move is the unlucky one.
It is a clear and simple rule.

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

You are severely underestimating the state of computer go players. Seki have not been a real source of problems. Besides, optimal strategy on 4x4, for example, produces a whole-board seki.

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

willemien, how or when is history needed for territory scoring?

Harleqin, seki may not have been a problem for CG so far but seki could not be classified on the shape level yet. Presumably this will take some more decades.