RobertJasiek wrote:
For your opinion to possibly start making some sense, you first need to clarify the following:
I feel like your entire post is just trying to troll me. Maybe you felt that I was specifically trolling you? I wish that were the case now because I might have tried harder.
RobertJasiek wrote:
a) What about a perpetual ko-cycle of two plays with intervening pass(es), such as the last basic endgame ko when the opponent's only legal ko threat is a pass or filling an intersection of his own two-eye-formation? (I cannot guess what you consider good rules design here.)
Is this a question? Indeed,
what about it such a ko-cycle? I see no issue with it beyond what has been stated. Is this a situation where the ko cannot be filled? In that case, it does sound like it might be a perpetual ko if the players choose. But wasn't that an assumption of the question?
RobertJasiek wrote:
b) What about a cycle of exactly 1 play being single-stone suicide (let me guess: you want to prohibit suicide for some reason)?
Again -- what about it? What is the question? I know that some rules prohibit playing a move that would be suicide. But it would be better game design to just not have a rule prohibiting suicide. Such a rule is unnecessary. So I don't know why you think I would want to prohibit it.
RobertJasiek wrote:
c) What about the most frequent cycle (longer than 1 play) comprising 3 plays (sending-2-returning-1)? (Let me guess: for your opinion of superko and long cycle ko rules to be bad game design, it is necessary to call traditional territory scoring "good" game design.)
It's these questions that don't make sense. What is the question? And no, traditional territory scoring is not good game design, but it is not necessarily bad game design. Think for a second. It is Stone Scoring that is good game design because the scoring is simple (count pieces on a board) and it directly corresponds to play-mechanic which is used to build the game state. Territory scoring requires the additional game-mechanic of prisoners. Though it is not usually cumbersome and in fact it is a bit satisfying for the player. Area scoring requires scouring both stones, places where stones could be, and eyes. The basic game mechanic is placing a stone and Stone Scoring counts placed stones. It is the best game design for scoring because it requires the fewest mechanics and it directly relates to the fundamental play-mechanic.
RobertJasiek wrote:
Why do you consider complicated rules design (to decide the game by nigiri or by a shorter 13x13 or 9x9 game) to be good rules design?
I never said that I consider this to be a good rule design. Also, I don't see what is complicated about allowing the players to agree to decide the game by nigiri or a smaller sized board? The
mechanic itself is simple.
RobertJasiek wrote:
Simple rules design other than to simply apply the same (superko-like) rules (which you dislike for other reasons than the rules being simple as rules) is to declare a game with special behaviour a tie (equivalent to jigo).
Sure, that is a simple mechanic but it is still an additional game-mechanic compared to simply adjourning the game, which is not a game mechanic. If a game cannot be adjourned because of tournament requirements, then sure, a jigo is a simple alternative just like nigiri.
RobertJasiek wrote:
"Board game design" is a strong phrase. Discussion is already complicated enough if we restrict it to "go game design".
There are thousands of examples of board game and game mechanics from which to draw comparison. There are many game mechanics that have been improved on over time and many game mechanics that have been created to solve a problem. Discussing board game design simplifies the discussion about Go because it clearly shows that certain propositions are just bad game design. The fact that there are complicated discussions about ko-cycles in the first place shows that any rules would be overly complex and thus bad board game design.
RobertJasiek wrote:
You say that the possibility of a perpetual ko-cycle was the best version of the game but what it actually means is infinitely long, endlessly repeated play. Good rules design for human players prevents the possibility of a perpetual ko-cycle!
I already admitted that allowing for the possibility of a ko-cycle was bad game design. It's just not as bad as implementing ko-cycle rules.
RobertJasiek wrote:
So presumably you mean the contrary: the PREVENTION of a perpetual ko-cycle. Since you call superko-like rules bad, more specifically you want ko restriction rules somehow restricting long cycles.
I never said that and nothing that I did say would suggest that. ...I feel like you're just trolling me.
RobertJasiek wrote:
d) Do you want to allow or prohibit occurrence of long cycles with 4+ plays, such as in eternal life or triple ko? Do you call Japanese style no-result ko rules good or bad? (Let me guess: since such are (long) ko-cycle rules, you call them bad. This raises the next clarification.)
e) How to let ko rules aka go game design detect any long cycle at all if such rules are called bad and therefore may not be part of go game design? (Let me guess: you have overlooked this contradiction in your opinion.)
Haha! Come on. Anyone else (but you) reading my post will understand my thoughts on these points. A long cycle is not ideal but it is not
bad, and certainly not as bad as requiring players to perform mental bookkeeping. Either player can choose to end a cycle if they want. If the game is too close for that, then alternative victory conditions (or a jigo) would be better than requiring mental bookkeeping.
RobertJasiek wrote:
Why do you consider superko rules and ko-cycle rules bad?
I've already said why: they require the player to perform mental bookkeeping of what happened beyond the last turn. And there is no game-mechanic for tracking the cycle.
"Cycles" are not even a concept of Go. There is literally no game mechanic to track cycles. Any rule about cycles goes beyond the game of go. It's like having a rule about what the players can have for lunch while playing the game. It's irrelevant to the actual game mechanics. If cycles were part of the game of Go, there would already be a mechanic for tracking cycle.
RobertJasiek wrote:
The simplest is the positional superko rule. It is good because
- just one rule handles all,
- almost all practically occurring cycles are at most 6 plays long and can be handled well,
- the only significant, practically occurring cycles with more than 6 plays occur in quadruple or quintuple kos, in which the skill to avoid a rule violation by accidentally completing a long cycle is still much easier than the skill required for tactical reading in difficult life and death problems without cycles.
The superko rules is NOT "simple." Just because there is one rule that can cover multiple situations does not make it simple. Superko is complex because the state of the board game does not present the viability of the next move that can be played.
RobertJasiek wrote:
You suggest that long cycle kos were not a problem at all. Uh, but they are - otherwise you would not even have started this thread:)
It's not long ko cycles that are the problem. I have no problem with that. It's long posts that yours that are my problem.
RobertJasiek wrote:
"It is a fundamental principle of good board game design that any decision making by the player (where/how to play) need only rely on the existing state of the game (the stones positions in Go) and the last change to that game state (the last stone placed in Go, or the last turn/phase in some games)":
Sorry, but this cannot be so for go because cycles longer than 2 moves do exist, do occur and do need ruling. You can only achieve this on the strategic level.
No, I'm sorry. But this is true for EVERY board game, including go. Your failure is that you have yet to explain why cycles longer than two moves would need a ruling in the first place. And if longer cycles were to be ruled on, why would there not be some game mechanic to track them?