So if I play here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

I then remove all groups without liberties and end up with this?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

If you don't want that, you have to add a rule to specify the order. E.g. New Zealand rules specify that you first remove opposing stones without liberties, then remove your own stones without liberties.

Japanese say: Remove opposing stones without liberties, then if any of your stones have no liberties, the move is illegal.

Either way, you have to add a rule on top of "remove opposing stones without liberties" (well actually you don't, of course, but then you get DelayedSuicide or, if you do want the above to happen, you get MutualCapture)

Ok. In my head I've always understood it as New Zealand rules and that's how I've taught it.

I think the origin of it being intuitive, or natural, to me is that I think of stone removal a "YOU, remove the stones". i.e.: You play in your turn and remove white stones with no liberties and then, in his turn, white removes yours. Thus, establishing a natural priority.

It's never come up in a game I've played or witnessed so I guess I simply don't care enough. Maybe once I've reached a level where I can actually plan a game to win by half a point, I'll care more.

Probably it has, but you never noticed

E.g. life by OshiTsubushi isn't very rare, it happens regularly. And, of course, you may have played ot witnessed games where it was possible to create oshi-tsubushi but a player didn't, because it had no extra value due to suicide being illegal anyway.

And, of course, there are other common situations where it makes a difference.

E.g:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ a is a ko threat for white if suicide is allowed.
$$ -----------------------
$$ . . . X a O X . X O . .
$$ . . O O X X X X X O . .
$$ . . . . O O O O O O . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Why should a priori the priority "remove opposing then own" be more natural than "remove own then opposing"?

If you want suicide because it is more logical and less arbitrary, then you also have to allow single-stone suicide.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ white to play
$$
$$ .X.
$$ XaX
$$ .X.[/go]

...and come on, that's just silly.

The (active) placed stone acts upon the (passive) stone it is placed next to, reducing the enemy stone's liberties to zero, thereby capturing it.

A player being taught the rules might think of mutual capture as a possibility (I think that's happened to me while teaching), but while I can't prove it, I strongly believe that no player would think that only the placed stone is captured, leaving the enemy stone on the board.

So far as axiomatized rules go, either alternative is equally sensible. So far as human psychology goes, only one is a live possibility.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

So is doing this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B herp derp hurr durr
$$------
$$|. X 1 X O .
$$|X X X X O .
$$|O O O O O .
$$|. . . . . .[/go]

But the rules of go should not forbid stupid or pointless moves.

Besides, single stone suicide is exactly equivalent to rules where you hand over a stone for passing.

_________________
Poka King of the south east.

Passing gives you an opportunity to pass in return, ending the game.

Standard go rules have a nice property that if your opponent is trolling - not interested in playing but just making silly moves - then you can make all your groups unconditionally alive and then just keep passing, and eventually your opponent will run out of valid moves. With suicide, they can keep on making dumb moves forever. It would give every angry little kid an easy way to try to drive you out of a won game through sheer annoyance. Superko would solve this, but most servers don't have superko and implementing it would be a serious change.

No. (Hint: there are also the ko rules.)

Ok, but this is about human psychology and not about what is natural on the board.

I'm not sure about forever, as players only have a max of 181 stones to begin with.

_________________
Central Mississippi Go Club
http://www.cmgo.org

No.

Practical question, then. How, in the real world, does one proceed with the game when one has used all of one's actual stones?

_________________
Central Mississippi Go Club
http://www.cmgo.org

(a) Have enough extra stones to minimize this happening
(b) Re-cycle captured stones
(c) Borrow from the next table

In the past 10 years, with (a), I only had to use (b) or (c) less than 10 times.
With (a), (b), and (c), I've never run out of stones in my games, and I've never seen
anybody else (including all casual games and tournaments) either, not even once ever (the past 10 years).

A somewhat more satisfying response than "No."

_________________
Central Mississippi Go Club
http://www.cmgo.org

I feel the opposite. As my understanding is the supply of stones is supposed to be infinite. (Aside from ING rules, etc.)

Sort of related: sometimes, glass stones sets come with a few extra.
With shell and slate sets, they tend to be very accurate: 181 B and 180 W (maybe with 1 or 2 extras).

I'm a computer programmer, so an assumption of infinity is troubling to my worldview and impressively easy to correct for in the code.

In any event, angry teenagers can *already* play dumb moves to wear down the patience of opponents regardless of suicide rules.

_________________
Central Mississippi Go Club
http://www.cmgo.org

I share the same background, and my worldview happily includes infinite infinities.

Perhaps a better term is "unlimited". Players have an unlimited number of stones at their disposal.

As a computer programmer myself, I think there is a lot of truth to the adage: There are only three numbers in computer science: 0, 1 and N (aka unlimited, any, many, etc).

infinity in math is defined by identifying it with a set of integers with no upperbound. That is a set unlimited from above. I guess your (HH) number unlimited has the same properties as this set. And hence that unfinite and unlimited are the same animals.