It is currently Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:48 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #61 Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:50 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
Javaness2 wrote:
suicide would add almost nothing to the theory of Go.


It has added a lot of excitement for those enjoying study of go rules theory and its application.


This post by RobertJasiek was liked by: axd
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #62 Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:51 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
Annihilist wrote:
There is no need for such a rule.


This and the contrary have been discussed earlier in this thread.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #63 Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:55 pm 
Gosei

Posts: 1337
Liked others: 108
Was liked: 277
RobertJasiek wrote:
Javaness2 wrote:
suicide would add almost nothing to the theory of Go.


It has added a lot of excitement for those enjoying study of go rules theory and its application.


Yes, but only that.
Meaning, to be blunt, the rules minutiae are not big parts of the culture. People learn life and death. Opening theory. Study pro games. Play. Promote. Organise tournaments. Look at history. Suicide added a little to some rules theory.

_________________
North Lecale

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #64 Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:19 am 
Tengen

Posts: 5233
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 724
Javaness2 wrote:
Suicide added a little to some rules theory.


After you make efforts to explain non-rules-level theory, you conclude that suicide added little to rules-level theory? Maybe you have wanted to conclude that - so far - it adds relatively little to non-rules-level theory?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #65 Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:36 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1337
Liked others: 108
Was liked: 277
No, I didn't, since placing suicide into the rules has demonstrably not had any impact on how people play the game.

_________________
North Lecale

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #66 Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:09 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 2005
Location: Groningen, NL
Liked others: 202
Was liked: 1081
Rank: Dutch 4D
GD Posts: 645
Universal go server handle: herminator
RobertJasiek wrote:
Javaness2 wrote:
Suicide added a little to some rules theory.


After you make efforts to explain non-rules-level theory, you conclude that suicide added little to rules-level theory? Maybe you have wanted to conclude that - so far - it adds relatively little to non-rules-level theory?


Just a quick linguistic note: There is a difference between "added little" and "added a little". The first implies a meaning like "nothing significant", while the second implies a meaning more like "something relatively small" (i.e. "small" relative to the existing amount of rules theory, or small relative to the amount of theory added by other rules, such as e.g. various ko rules)


This post by HermanHiddema was liked by 2 people: Bonobo, speedchase
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #67 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:15 am 
Dies with sente
User avatar

Posts: 124
Location: still above sea level: http://bit.ly/eQYULx
Liked others: 1
Was liked: 8
Rank: 3d EGF
GD Posts: 1700
Occham's Razor:
is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses,
the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.


I assert for a moment that William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) would have liked Go
and then he would have especially liked Go with a rule set not mentioning suicide at all (i.e. = allowed).
Appeal to authority in speculation, I know.
Nevertheless, it makes a flashy argument, and ...


... why would someone like to have rulings on individual positions?
Let creativity prevail!

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | X X O . X O O . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X . O . X X O . X . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O X . X O . X . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X O O X X O . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O O O O . O . . O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . X O O O X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . . O O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , O . O . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '


Last edited by Tommie on Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #68 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:11 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2217
Location: Germany
Liked others: 8216
Was liked: 918
Rank: OGS DDK again
Universal go server handle: trohde
HermanHiddema wrote:
RobertJasiek wrote:
Javaness2 wrote:
Suicide added a little to some rules theory.

[..] you conclude that suicide added little to rules-level theory? [..]

[..] There is a difference between "added little" and "added a little". The first implies a meaning like "nothing significant", while the second implies a meaning more like "something relatively small" (i.e. "small" relative to the existing amount of rules theory, or small relative to the amount of theory added by other rules, such as e.g. various ko rules)

Vgl. »fügt wenig hinzu« vs. »fügt ein wenig hinzu« (for a corresponding German example).

I also believe that often the use of »little« does not really mean a small amount but can rather be large or have a large effect. Somewhat subtly embedded ironical understatement which, because of our mostly “subconscious” (BTW I prefer “ignored” for “subconscious”: we are educated/trained to ignore those “subconscious” things) and involuntary communication, leads to misunderstandings all too often, and drives children and other people crazy (as in “insane”, or “dysfunctional”). Small differences can have large effects.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS? :)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #69 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:47 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 761
Liked others: 152
Was liked: 204
Rank: the k-word
Tommie wrote:
Occham's Razor:
is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses,
the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.


I assert for a moment that William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) would have liked Go
and then he would have especially liked Go with a rule set not mentioning suicide at all (i.e. = allowed).



I don't think you have read the whole thread. This was discussed before.
The sad reality is, neither the ruleset with suicide nor the one without is simpler with the other. Each has to make an extra assumption compared to the other.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #70 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:52 am 
Dies with sente
User avatar

Posts: 124
Location: still above sea level: http://bit.ly/eQYULx
Liked others: 1
Was liked: 8
Rank: 3d EGF
GD Posts: 1700
palapiku wrote:
I don't think you have read the whole thread. This was discussed before.
The sad reality is, neither the ruleset with suicide nor the one without is simpler with the other. Each has to make an extra assumption compared to the other.


Correct, I have not read the thread.

However, the ruleset with one rule less (the one about suicide) is exactly that:
simpler by one rule !

And I could state that without reading all previous comments,
because it is self-evident.

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '


Last edited by Tommie on Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #71 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:09 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4344
Location: North Carolina
Liked others: 483
Was liked: 720
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
*sigh* This is why you read threads.

viewtopic.php?p=120351#p120351. (You may also find it useful to read this: https://xkcd.com/1112/).

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #72 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:59 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 2005
Location: Groningen, NL
Liked others: 202
Was liked: 1081
Rank: Dutch 4D
GD Posts: 645
Universal go server handle: herminator
Tommie wrote:
palapiku wrote:
I don't think you have read the whole thread. This was discussed before.
The sad reality is, neither the ruleset with suicide nor the one without is simpler with the other. Each has to make an extra assumption compared to the other.


Correct, I have not read the thread.

However, the ruleset with one rule less (the one about suicide) is exactly that:
simpler by one rule !

And I could state that without reading all previous comments,
because it is self-evident.


You really should have read the thread :roll:

Here's four major ways to deal with capture/suicide:

1. Play stone. Remove any opposing stones without liberties. If you stone has no liberties, the move was illegal. (traditional)
2. Play stone. Remove any opposing stones without liberties. Remove any of your own stones without liberties. (NewZealandRules)
3. Play stone. Remove any opposing stones without liberties. (DelayedSuicide)
4. Play stone. Remove any stones without liberties (SimultaneousCapture)

The New Zealand style suicide rule is not really simpler than disallowing it. Simpler rules exist, but are not played anywhere.


This post by HermanHiddema was liked by 2 people: luigi, palapiku
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #73 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:40 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 4344
Location: North Carolina
Liked others: 483
Was liked: 720
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
Thanks for that, Herman. I had never thought of delayed suicide before.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #74 Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:32 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 800
Liked others: 141
Was liked: 123
Rank: AGA 2kyu
Universal go server handle: speedchase
since it was brought up:
palapiku wrote:
As pointed out before, suicide actually requires an additional rule, which is that when placing a stone you first remove stones of opposite color with no liberties, and then stones of your own color with no liberties.

Regular go does not have that rule.


Regular go actually has two rules regarding this.
1: if you play a stone that starts with no liberties that gains liberties in the process of capturing opponents stones, it is not removed.
2: rule forbidding suicide

go permitting suicide has one
1: if you play a stone that starts with no liberties that gains liberties in the process of capturing opponents stones, it is not removed.
Tommie is infact correct, although he probably should have read the thread

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #75 Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:06 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 4344
Location: North Carolina
Liked others: 483
Was liked: 720
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
Counting rules is extremely hard--you need a set vocabulary and/or restrictions on the complexity of the rules (otherwise, you just concatenate all your rules, and presto, any game has just one rule!), and there is no guarantee that two distinct vocabularies, the ordering produced will be the same.

What Palapiku's example strictly shows is that permitting suicide is not necessarily simpler than banning it. However, in a vocabulary I find natural (but I'm not as good with rules as some people on here), I'd say:

Standard go:
1. Stones are eligible for removal when they (or their containing groups) have no liberties.
2. After playing a stone, one removes all enemy groups which are eligible for removal.
3. One may not play a stone which would be eligible for removal after completing phase 2.

Suicide go:
1. Ditto.
2. Ditto.
3. One then removes any remaining stones which are eligible for removal.

Thus, complexity is even.

As I pointed out earlier, it's a fact about our psychology that we tend to assume something about the ordering question Palapiku raised, whether or not it's stated. But if what we're really after is logical/mathematical simplicity, we want to be explicit about these things.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #76 Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:57 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 800
Liked others: 141
Was liked: 123
Rank: AGA 2kyu
Universal go server handle: speedchase
Technically what you wrote was a list of steps after each turn, not a list of rules, but I do see your point

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #77 Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:22 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 2005
Location: Groningen, NL
Liked others: 202
Was liked: 1081
Rank: Dutch 4D
GD Posts: 645
Universal go server handle: herminator
speedchase wrote:
since it was brought up:
palapiku wrote:
As pointed out before, suicide actually requires an additional rule, which is that when placing a stone you first remove stones of opposite color with no liberties, and then stones of your own color with no liberties.

Regular go does not have that rule.


Regular go actually has two rules regarding this.
1: if you play a stone that starts with no liberties that gains liberties in the process of capturing opponents stones, it is not removed.
2: rule forbidding suicide

go permitting suicide has one
1: if you play a stone that starts with no liberties that gains liberties in the process of capturing opponents stones, it is not removed.
Tommie is infact correct, although he probably should have read the thread


Under these suggested rules, it is legal to play a move that removes your own last liberty. And, since there is no rule to tell you to remove them, those stones then remain on the board.

This is a valid set of rules, but it is in no way even near any rules allowing suicide, such as New Zealand rules.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #78 Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:08 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 800
Liked others: 141
Was liked: 123
Rank: AGA 2kyu
Universal go server handle: speedchase
HermanHiddema wrote:

Under these suggested rules, it is legal to play a move that removes your own last liberty. And, since there is no rule to tell you to remove them, those stones then remain on the board.

This is a valid set of rules, but it is in no way even near any rules allowing suicide, such as New Zealand rules.

obviously I was omitting the rule: "at the end of every turn, a stone with no liberties is removed" from both rule sets. Just like I was omitting rules about about scoring and dead stones. :roll:

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #79 Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:38 am 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 2005
Location: Groningen, NL
Liked others: 202
Was liked: 1081
Rank: Dutch 4D
GD Posts: 645
Universal go server handle: herminator
speedchase wrote:
HermanHiddema wrote:

Under these suggested rules, it is legal to play a move that removes your own last liberty. And, since there is no rule to tell you to remove them, those stones then remain on the board.

This is a valid set of rules, but it is in no way even near any rules allowing suicide, such as New Zealand rules.

obviously I was omitting the rule: "at the end of every turn, a stone with no liberties is removed" from both rule sets. Just like I was omitting rules about about scoring and dead stones. :roll:


Ah, I see, so:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . X O . .
$$ . X O 1 O .
$$ . . X O . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]


results in

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . X O . .
$$ . X . . O .
$$ . . X O . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]


then?


This post by HermanHiddema was liked by: luigi
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Go 'Suicide'?
Post #80 Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:01 am 
Dies in gote
User avatar

Posts: 57
Location: Porto Alegre, Brazil
Liked others: 70
Was liked: 17
Rank: KGS 14 kyu
KGS: Samura
Just to add another thing to the discussion.

Today I discovered that there is an algorithm used by computer programs to analyze the status of groups, especially if they are unconditionally alive. It's called Benson's algorithm and one of the necessary conditions is that the ruleset forbid suicides. With suicides the algorithm needs more analyzes and thus more time.

So, whith a ruleset tha allows suicide, computer programs would have a harder time to find the status of groups. :ugeek:

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group