It is currently Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:35 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #21 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 8:54 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 109
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 24
Rank: 1d
Universal go server handle: iopq
pgwq wrote:
iopq wrote:
I have just got this idea by reading that KataGo prefers not going into 3-3 point under a 4-4 stone with the group tax rules because of the 2 point penalty.
Could a very logical and simple territory-style ruleset be derived from the concept of "territory is the amount of excess moves you can make". How to make that into a consistent ruling?

Using ancient rules of Song Dynasty as below is OK.

1. "dame is not allowed except to balance moves"
2. "even number moves then game over"
3. "territory not including basic liberties/eyes for groups alive forever(group tax)"
4. komi = 0

if you like, komi will be changed.


Disallowing dame is a bit funny. For example, it's not clear whether you can force someone to defend a group until you fill all of their outside liberties. Maybe they don't need to defend, but you can't test their defense until you fill the dame first. In other words, I don't feel like defining dame in the text of the rules or the implementation.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #22 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:01 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3364
iopq wrote:
jaeup wrote:
iopq wrote:
The only thing is that online players don't like filling dame. Of course the only practical way to test a ruleset (for fairness in practice, for example) is to add it to some online server.

Is there any way to chill the scoring where dame are not worth anything even if you forgot to fill them?
I am surprised to see that no one mentions this. If button Go is introduced properly to give slight benefit for the first passer, one player can pass when only dames are left and the other player can simply agree to score, just like the way life goes on in many internet Go servers. To make life even easier, the server may let the first player to suggest to score instead of pass. If the second player agrees, then the server treats as if the first player gains the benefit of the first passer automatically.

There is no harm to deny such a process and to keeping playing, but there is nothing to gain by doing so. (Isn't this a well known fact?)


What value button is that? One point? If there's only one dame left it's to your advantage to fill the dame. I think I need a bit more explanation.

At 2 points now you should take the button over some real move like taking a ko


In button go the button gains ½ point by area scoring, loses ½ point by territory scoring. Button go is hybrid of area and territory scoring. See https://senseis.xmp.net/?ButtonGo :)

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #23 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:28 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 109
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 24
Rank: 1d
Universal go server handle: iopq
Bill Spight wrote:

In button go the button gains ½ point by area scoring, loses ½ point by territory scoring. Button go is hybrid of area and territory scoring. See https://senseis.xmp.net/?ButtonGo :)

If it's half a point, then filling dame is still worthwhile, if you pass to take the button you lose half a point

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #24 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:36 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3364
iopq wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:

In button go the button gains ½ point by area scoring, loses ½ point by territory scoring. Button go is hybrid of area and territory scoring. See https://senseis.xmp.net/?ButtonGo :)

If it's half a point, then filling dame is still worthwhile, if you pass to take the button you lose half a point


Yup. :)

The basic idea of the button is to make it so that it does not matter who fills the last dame, as a rule. :)

If there is a ko fight going on when the last dame is filled then the button just makes a ½ point difference in the area score.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #25 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:12 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 72
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 10
iopq wrote:
pgwq wrote:
iopq wrote:
I have just got this idea by reading that KataGo prefers not going into 3-3 point under a 4-4 stone with the group tax rules because of the 2 point penalty.
Could a very logical and simple territory-style ruleset be derived from the concept of "territory is the amount of excess moves you can make". How to make that into a consistent ruling?

Using ancient rules of Song Dynasty as below is OK.

1. "dame is not allowed except to balance moves"
2. "even number moves then game over"
3. "territory not including basic liberties/eyes for groups alive forever(group tax)"
4. komi = 0

if you like, komi will be changed.


Disallowing dame is a bit funny. For example, it's not clear whether you can force someone to defend a group until you fill all of their outside liberties. Maybe they don't need to defend, but you can't test their defense until you fill the dame first. In other words, I don't feel like defining dame in the text of the rules or the implementation.



For avoiding the benefits of last dame problem only, because "even number moves then game over".
If you want, you have the right to play continue, see CannonQi.

PS:
Simply passing is prohibited.

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #26 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:28 pm 
Dies in gote

Posts: 64
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 16
Rank: 5d
iopq wrote:
What value button is that? One point? If there's only one dame left it's to your advantage to fill the dame. I think I need a bit more explanation.
After some more thoughts, I realized that I probably miscalculated it. I am sorry for the confusion.

I still think there is no harm recommending players to press the "score button" when only dames are left. (Practically no one presses the "pass button" at the end of the game. They simple request to score the game.) If both players agree, assuming all the life and death are settled, the server can simply count the score without any problem. If somebody wants to do trolling by not agreeing, well... filling the dames is not so important any more, because the troll may still continue playing after all dames are filled.

_________________
Jaeup Kim
Professor in Physics, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
Author of the Book "Understanding the Rules of Baduk", available at http://home.unist.ac.kr/~jukim/index.php?mid=notice&document_srl=752233

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #27 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:34 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 109
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 24
Rank: 1d
Universal go server handle: iopq
jaeup wrote:
iopq wrote:
What value button is that? One point? If there's only one dame left it's to your advantage to fill the dame. I think I need a bit more explanation.
After some more thoughts, I realized that I probably miscalculated it. I am sorry for the confusion.

I still think there is no harm recommending players to press the "score button" when only dames are left. (Practically no one presses the "pass button" at the end of the game. They simple request to score the game.) If both players agree, assuming all the life and death are settled, the server can simply count the score without any problem. If somebody wants to do trolling by not agreeing, well... filling the dames is not so important any more, because the troll may still continue playing after all dames are filled.


So trolling does revert back to no pass go with prisoner exchange. If you offer to score, but your opponent refuses, it should be your turn again so you can start filling dame. If White passes first, it's free, but not if Black passes before White.

So if the last dame is Black, it's free for White to pass first. If the last dame is White, it's not free for Black to pass. I think that equalizes the score to territory scoring. If you give 6 prisoners to White at the start, Black needs 7 points more of territory to win (because White to pass first is free so it doesn't matter who got the last dame, it's on Black to just get 7 points of territory more to win).

Let's say you only have one dame left. You offer to score, your opponent disagrees. You can fill it and play prisoner exchange go (passing costs one prisoner). If they see you're playing prisoner exchange go properly maybe they give up and agree to the game result. So in fact, scoring and passing don't have to be the same. You can agree to score and ignore the dame because we just eliminated the order of the last dame (since if Black gets one more White passes for free).

In that case, playing dame is pointless, since the game result is decided already whether or not you offer to score

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #28 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:56 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 377
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 32
I'm not sure which rules or version you (both) refer to, but unless it's territory scoring I'm curious if ignoring dame could really work in all cases (board/seki/dame parities, B first or W first in particular).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #29 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:06 pm 
Dies in gote

Posts: 64
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 16
Rank: 5d
jann wrote:
I'm not sure which rules or version you (both) refer to, but unless it's territory scoring I'm curious if ignoring dame could really work in all cases (board/seki/dame parities, B first or W first in particular).
Once the Button Go is properly introduced, in more than 95% of the cases, regardless of B/W or number of dame left, it is a reasonable decision for one player to suggest to score and for the other player to accept the request. Then, count the territory as one does in the territory counting mode of the AGA rule. i.e. one must add the pass stones in the scoring. Again, for more than 95% of the cases, there won't be any pass stones anyway.

Filling in dame without doing so doesn't do any harm, but it doesn't give any advantage. Here, "suggest to score" does not mean passing. It is more like, in an internet Go game, pressing the score button and waiting for your opponent to agree.

The reason I mention 95% is that, there will be rare cases that one wants to collect a few pass stones from one's opponent, typically in a situation that a player fills in a few empty points in seki but the opponent cannot fill in and must provide pass stones.

_________________
Jaeup Kim
Professor in Physics, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
Author of the Book "Understanding the Rules of Baduk", available at http://home.unist.ac.kr/~jukim/index.php?mid=notice&document_srl=752233

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #30 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:10 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 109
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 24
Rank: 1d
Universal go server handle: iopq
jaeup wrote:
jann wrote:
I'm not sure which rules or version you (both) refer to, but unless it's territory scoring I'm curious if ignoring dame could really work in all cases (board/seki/dame parities, B first or W first in particular).
Once the Button Go is properly introduced, in more than 95% of the cases, regardless of B/W or number of dame left, it is a reasonable decision for one player to suggest to score and for the other player to accept the request. Then, count the territory as one does in the territory counting mode of the AGA rule. i.e. one must add the pass stones in the scoring. Again, for more than 95% of the cases, there won't be any pass stones anyway.

Filling in dame without doing so doesn't do any harm, but it doesn't give any advantage. Here, "suggest to score" does not mean passing. It is more like, in an internet Go game, pressing the score button and waiting for your opponent to agree.

The reason I mention 95% is that, there will be rare cases that one wants to collect a few pass stones from one's opponent, typically in a situation that a player fills in a few empty points in seki but the opponent cannot fill in and must provide pass stones.


I would consider those points already, since in prisoner exchange go being able to fill points in a seki your opponent cannot is already counting as a point, unlike Japanese rules.

The ruling is based on the exact amount of moves you can make in a seki, not on the number of eyes. In other words, some moves that are not even eyes are considered points in this ruleset, and don't have to be made provided the automatic scoring is sufficiently good.

When you agree to score and disagree on the amount of points, every move you make in this hypothetical play scenario is worth one point, you don't need to fill the dame to force the pass stones after you've agreed to score since it doesn't change the outcome of the game

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #31 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:56 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 64
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 16
Rank: 5d
iopq wrote:
some moves that are not even eyes are considered points in this ruleset, and don't have to be made provided the automatic scoring is sufficiently good.
In practice, it will be quite difficult to write a logical ruleset that automatically distinguishes such "hidden" points. Most area scoring rulesets are written to count "stones + eyes" and they require explicit plays to fill in such empty points. Well, if the automatic scoring program is good enough, it may not be necessary, but I wouldn't trust the program and would keep playing unless I am 100% sure it works that way.

iopq wrote:
When you agree to score and disagree on the amount of points, every move you make in this hypothetical play scenario is worth one point, you don't need to fill the dame to force the pass stones after you've agreed to score since it doesn't change the outcome of the game
I prefer that a ruleset recommends to finish a game by the agreement of both players, and "agreement" can in principle include all the points one should score. Of course, whenever they fail to agree, they must keep playing according to the ruleset. There is no harm in giving them a chance to make an agreement, rather than following a (sometimes) painful formal game ending procedure. (Who makes two or more passes in a real life game anyway?)

_________________
Jaeup Kim
Professor in Physics, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
Author of the Book "Understanding the Rules of Baduk", available at http://home.unist.ac.kr/~jukim/index.php?mid=notice&document_srl=752233

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #32 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:20 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 109
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 24
Rank: 1d
Universal go server handle: iopq
jaeup wrote:
iopq wrote:
some moves that are not even eyes are considered points in this ruleset, and don't have to be made provided the automatic scoring is sufficiently good.
In practice, it will be quite difficult to write a logical ruleset that automatically distinguishes such "hidden" points. Most area scoring rulesets are written to count "stones + eyes" and they require explicit plays to fill in such empty points. Well, if the automatic scoring program is good enough, it may not be necessary, but I wouldn't trust the program and would keep playing unless I am 100% sure it works that way.

iopq wrote:
When you agree to score and disagree on the amount of points, every move you make in this hypothetical play scenario is worth one point, you don't need to fill the dame to force the pass stones after you've agreed to score since it doesn't change the outcome of the game
I prefer that a ruleset recommends to finish a game by the agreement of both players, and "agreement" can in principle include all the points one should score. Of course, whenever they fail to agree, they must keep playing according to the ruleset. There is no harm in giving them a chance to make an agreement, rather than following a (sometimes) painful formal game ending procedure. (Who makes two or more passes in a real life game anyway?)


I mean the agreement can include "we will score the game as if we filled the dame, and then every player played prisoner exchange go by filling the points in seki and their own territory"

if you disagree who gets what point, the player who first asked to score gets to resume play and then you keep playing until you reach an agreement. At some point prisoners are exchanged and one player runs out of legal moves and prisoners. That player loses and there doesn't need to be an agreement. Even if he's trolling, he can't do anything once every group has only two liberties, even if he suicides, eventually that area of the board will be filled. At that point he has no prisoners or legal moves and he just automatically loses.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #33 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:35 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 109
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 24
Rank: 1d
Universal go server handle: iopq
We can imagine the 6.5 komi as a Black pass stone on the side of the board and six in White's bowl.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . X 1 O . . . |
$$ | . . . X 2 O . . . |
$$ ---------[/go]


So White gets the last dame and Black should immediately throw the Black pass stone into White's bowl. This gives White 7 prisoners, 27-2=25 points of territory. Black has 34-2 points of territory, so after they all fill their respective territories it will be White's turn and Black wins.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ ---------
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . X O . . . |
$$ | . . . X 1 O . . . |
$$ | . . . X 2 O . . . |
$$ ---------[/go]


Black mistake, he starts filling his own territory before taking the pass stone. White throws the pass stone into Black's bowl taking his free pass instead. Now Black has to move and he lost a point of territory, having 31 points to White's now 6 prisoners and 25 points of territory. Because after White throws the passing stone back into the bowl it's Black's move, Black loses.

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


You can see the order of the moves was different in this game, so Black got the last dame. But the result is the same as the previous game, White gets to pass for free winning the game.

The result of this ruleset is the same as territory scoring with a group tax in this case.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #34 Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:54 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 109
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 24
Rank: 1d
Universal go server handle: iopq
I need some comments from rules experts on the forum.

Board and plays

1. A go board consists of intersecting curves.

Commentary: Most go boards use straight lines to form a flat grid. The most popular sizes consist of 9x9, 13x13, and 19x19 intersections.


2. A play occupies one intersection on the board that is currently not occupied with a certain color. Occupied points are called stones.

Commentary: The board usually has no stones at the beginning of a game, but can also be set up with existing stones to handicap a game or force variation. In this case, you can say that the colors were forced to make plays on certain intersections at the beginning of the game.


3. During the game, players take turns choosing an action for their color. This action can be making board plays, or choosing not to make a board play, called a pass.

Commentary: The most common number of players is two, but sometimes four players play two different colors, known as pair go. Another form of handicap is to force some of the colors to skip the first few turns to let the other players play a few stones, known as free handicap.


4. An intersection is said to be reaching another intersection if along one curve there exists no other intersection with a different curve between those two intersections.

Commentary: on a rectangular grid these are points that are horizontally or vertically adjacent to each other. There are two neighboring points when the intersection is a corner, three when it's on the side of the board, and four in the middle.


5. A group of stones is a set of unique stones. Any stone that reaches only empty points or stones of other colors is said to be a group of one stone. Any stone that reaches another stone of the same color is in the same group as that stone.

Commentary: A group is a set of stones of one color that are connected to each other. Being connected to each other means that any stone in the set can form a reaching path through the set to any other stone in the group.


6. A group is said to be reaching an intersection if any of its members reach that intersection. A group reaching a number of unoccupied intersections is said to have that number of liberties.

7. When one color makes a play on the board, other color stones that have zero liberties are removed from the board leaving the intersections empty in the same order as the order in which colors take turns, starting from the next color to play and finishing with the same color as the one that just played. This is called a capture.

Commentary: This means when the player plays a stone that is now in a group that has no liberties, he still has the chance to remove groups of other colors first that have no liberties. This ruleset also allows the player to remove stones of his own color by filling their own last liberty which is called multiple stone suicide.


8. A player is not allowed to recreate any previous board configuration at the end of their turn where all of the intersections were occupied by exactly the same colors at any previous point in the the same game.
Commentary: This prevents players from creating infinite cycles of play, known as a ko ban. It also prohibits single stone suicide as the the result. Passes do not remove ko bans since they do not alter the state of the board.


Scoring and prisoners

1. When a player's stones are captured, a number called the prisoner count of that color is increased by the amount of stones removed.

Commentary: The prisoner count doesn't have to start at zero. In a two player game, the first player might give up 7 prisoners at the start, while the second player gives up 0. The difference in the number of prisoners at the start of the game is called komi, in this case 7. There are other ways of handicapping a game, for example to give the weaker player the first move, and make the first player also give up more prisoners, called reverse komi indicating it's a negative komi value.


2. Each color can pass for free until they have made as many plays plus free passes as one of the other colors has made plays. After the number is equalized for all of the colors, no player can make free passes.

Commentary: Because colors all take turns in order, there can be a situation where the color who played the last beneficial move played more board plays than some other colors. In that case the remaining colors who didn't get to make as many moves can pass once to equalize without freeing prisoners.

In the case of a handicap, this lets the other colors pass at the end of the game to equalize the number of moves, since giving a handicap is considered letting the other colors make several actions in a row.

3. Further passing decreases every other color's prisoner count by one.
Commentary: The rule is formulated that way to accommodate more than two colors.


4. When a player's prisoner count drops below zero, that player can pass to finish the game. The players can then compare scores and the lowest prisoner count wins.
Commentary: Let's say Black moved first and White moved second and they have no prisoners. If White passed first, he doesn't have to free any prisoners. Then when Black passes, he has to free a White prisoner, making White's prisoner count -1, then White passes to end the game, making Black's prisoner count -1, which makes it a draw.

Second, if White takes the last free point, Black cannot pass for free, Black passes giving White -1 prisoners, White passes giving Black -1 prisoners also ending in a draw.

So the last shared point both players can take is not worth anything.

If you start Black off with a fractional number of prisoners like 6.5 to avoid draws. This is equivalent to giving 6 prisoners to White and declaring White wins all draws.

5. A color can concede the game avoid having to make further actions.

Commentary: in a two color game this results in a win for the other color.


6. Players can agree to count the game at any point they find convenient. If players disagree about the score, they can resume playing with the same player to move as before.

Commentary: once there's no difference in the order of the last few moves players can speed up the game by agreeing to count the result. Shared points that both players can take at any time do not count for anything since the order in which they are taken doesn't matter. The rule in which all players must make the same number of moves means that after filling those points, the next player to play should pass. That means that you can score the game without filling them since the result is the same. If the other player doesn't agree, you can resume from that point and keep playing. In other words, when players don't agree on the game result, they will eventually have to play passes as they run out of legal board plays, eventually ending the game.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Territory-style rules with a group tax
Post #35 Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:45 pm 
Beginner

Posts: 3
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 1
I think Ultimate Go (see https://senseis.xmp.net/?UltimateGo ) achieves exactly that - the "score" (which is not explicit in the rules) is the number of safe moves you can make, and yet there is sharpness, so for example a teire move is never completely free - it can turn a win into a draw (jigo), and a draw into a loss.


iopq wrote:
I have just got this idea by reading that KataGo prefers not going into 3-3 point under a 4-4 stone with the group tax rules because of the 2 point penalty.

Could a very logical and simple territory-style ruleset be derived from the concept of "territory is the amount of excess moves you can make". How to make that into a consistent ruling?

Maybe after the game is considered finished and the play is hypothetical it should be something like this:

1. The side to move doesn't matter anymore, you can access the position from both sides when the side to move has one more move that's a dame.
2. When one side can make an unanswered move, that's a point (in other words, pay 1 stone per pass)




This difference game results in:

a. black first captures one stone (+1), white captures three stones (-3) and then black cannot continue to play without giving up more points (-1)
b. white first captures (-2) and black cannot continue to play (-1)

in other words it is worth 3 points for white in both cases
of course, if you LOSE more than one point by moving first you just pay the 1 point to pass instead

if neither side wants to move, the position is scored as worth nothing for both players (seki)

How would this ruleset work in other weird cases? My point is to have the SHARPNESS of territory counting (wins by 6 and 7 possible), the ability to leave dame on the board in online play, but also be able to judge the result of all finished boards, and allow for hypothetical resolution of life and death

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

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