No.

Superko would solve this, but most servers don't have superko and implementing it would be a serious change.

It is true that suicide can have practical value as a ko threat. However, is that really a reason to overturn years of tradition? Given the limited tactical value afforded by the allowance of suicide, I'd have to vote against its inclusion.

To me, it seems inconsistant to have an additional rule making it illegal.

The rules allow you to play in a place where the stone, or stones would have no liberties if such a play kills the surrounding stones. This concept has to be understood already.

How is playing a stone where it kills itself different? Other than usually being stupid...but when it is not, why not.

Note that simply playing a single stone into a single suicide (really stupid) is already forbidden by the rule against repeating board positions.

To me, it seems inconsistant to have an additional rule making it illegal.

The rules allow you to play in a place where the stone, or stones would have no liberties if such a play kills the surrounding stones. This concept has to be understood already.

How is playing a stone where it kills itself different? Other than usually being stupid...but when it is not, why not.

Note that simply playing a single stone into a single suicide (really stupid) is already forbidden by the rule against repeating board positions.

suicide actually requires an additional rule,

Regular go does not have that rule.

What is "regular" go in contrast to "irregular go" WRT to (no) suicide?

The tradition of go up until NZ Rules were invented?

Out of interest, did any professional game under Ing Rules ever experience suicide?

I see. (Maybe Ing Rules suicide was earlier?) But do we really know what the tradition was? Probably we know it for Japan. I am not so sure about China in earlier centuries.



Probably yes, but it is infrequent indeed.

It's interesting because under "pass stone" rules, it is pretty much legal. You place a stone in an opponent's eye, it gets captured - you give them your stone and give up your turn. Same thing, essentially. Passing is playing a dead stone.

I like the "no-suicide" rule, because it's another parameter which makes the game more challenging and interesting. Of course, for the most part, you wouldn't suicide anyway, so it's a superfluous rule. Sometimes you can suicide as a ko threat. But it seems almost like a cop-out move, really. I don't like the idea that you can kill yourself and reset the board - or parts of it. I like how the board always changes. And I think that's part of the point of the ko rule, as well as this one.

That's a really interesting connection. But on the other hand, pass stones are a weird feature of the game. Although I now understand them (I think), every previous tournament I went to, there's this discussion before the first game: "isn't there something about White or Black playing last? Passing stones?" "Yeah, I think it's like this...but I don't know why".

It's interesting because under "pass stone" rules, it is pretty much legal. You place a stone in an opponent's eye, it gets captured - you give them your stone and give up your turn. Same thing, essentially. Passing is playing a dead stone.

I like the "no-suicide" rule, because it's another parameter which makes the game more challenging and interesting. Of course, for the most part, you wouldn't suicide anyway, so it's a superfluous rule. Sometimes you can suicide as a ko threat. But it seems almost like a cop-out move, really. I don't like the idea that you can kill yourself and reset the board - or parts of it. I like how the board always changes. And I think that's part of the point of the ko rule, as well as this one.

Pass stone and suicide are different if you suicide into your existing group (say, place a stone so that three of your stones get captured).

I usually frame this simply as "white pass after black". If black passes first, then white, then passing stones are superfluous. If the pass sequence is white, black, white, then white scores one extra point if no pass stones are used.

I think Annihilist's point was "If you allow multi-stone suicide, and pass stones, that is equivalent to allowing all suicides", because a single stone suicide is identical to passing and giving up a pass stone.




In yet another semi-esoteric consideration for pass stones....the white passes last rule is also needed to prevent pass fights. Without it, you can effectively create a "ko" over passing order.

You know about traditional chinese fuseki rules?

You know how go was traditionally played on 17x17?

I like to think we move on from tradition as we see what works and what doesn't. In all areas of life - not just go.

Yes, the rules have evolved. However, is there any compelling reason for them to include suicide as an option? From my observation, the game is not crying out for this change. If anyone can show me a pro game that used suicide, I'd love to see it. Moving to 19x19 and removing fixed starting positions made the game much richer. In contrast, suicide would add almost nothing to the theory of Go.

As an aside, I'd love to play a game here with Tibetan rules.