AGA rule wording

[iam3o5am]

From #5 of the AGA rules:
(http://www.usgo.org/files/pdf/completerules.pdf)

"It is illegal for a player to move so as to create a string of his or her own stones which is completely surrounded (without liberties) after any surrounded opposing stones are captured."


Okay, so the intention is obvious to anyone playing go longer than a day (i.e. no self-capture - read the full context in the Rules link above), but am I going crazy? Is the way that its worded possible? If opponent stones are being captured with the move in question (as it states in the wordage above), doesn't that guarantee you will have at least one open liberty...you can't capture and self-capture simultaneiously. Or am I embarrassing myself by misreading the statement?

[DrStraw]

I don't know that the rule necessitates capture of the opponent's stones, it merely allows for it. If no stones are captured then it is possible.

[iam3o5am]

I don't know that the rule necessitates capture of the opponent's stones, it merely allows for it. If no stones are captured then it is possible.

"it merely allows for it."

Of course your last sentence ("If no stones are captured...") makes sense. But how can the rule "allow" for something that cannot happen? If this is the official text of the AGA rules, does it make sense? There is no self-capture if there is a capture.

[HermanHiddema]

You're reading it wrong, the "any" does not apply to the whole rule, but only the "surrounding stones".

So the rule can be reworded "It is illegal for a player to move so as to create a string of his or her own stones which is completely surrounded (without liberties) after the capture of zero or more surrounding stones"

This, then, can be split into:

"It is illegal for a player to move so as to create a string of his or her own stones which is completely surrounded (without liberties) after the capture of zero stones"

"It is illegal for a player to move so as to create a string of his or her own stones which is completely surrounded (without liberties) after the capture of some surrounding stones"

The second case cannot happen, of course, but the first can and therefore the entire rule is correct.

The purpose of the phrase as written is to make it clear that the condition applies after the application of the capture rule, which specifies the capture of "any" (i.e. zero or more) surrounding stones.

[Uberdude]

$$Bc Peekaboo
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O O O O O . . .
$$ | . O X X X O . . .
$$ | . O X a X O . . .
$$ | . O X X X O . . .
$$ | . O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Peekaboo
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O O O O O . . .
$$ | . O X X X O . . .
$$ | . O X a X O . . .
$$ | . O X X X O . . .
$$ | . O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

This rule means black is not allowed to play at 'a' (which involves the capture of 0 surrounding stones), but white is (which involves the capture of 8 surrounding stones).

[Bill Spight]

The rule can be confusing, because if a move captures an opponent's stone, then it automatically has a liberty after the capture. However, if a move initially leaves both itself and an opponent's stone without a liberty, the rules must make it clear that the move captures the opponent's stone or stones. A little redundancy is not so bad.

[Bill Spight]

The purpose of the phrase as written is to make it clear that the condition applies after the application of the capture rule, which specifies the capture of "any" (i.e. zero or more) surrounding stones.

Sorry to nitpick, but in English any and one come from the same root. All can be zero, but any is more than zero. Otherwise, the answer to the question, "Are there any left?", would always be yes.

[iam3o5am]

We all understand the intention of the rule (of course). Isn't it obvious that the wording is wrong? It is silly to defend the meaning of 'any' as zero or more stones captured, when more than zero stones captured never leads to self-capture. Why defend the wording - the wording should be changed.

Again, for reference:
"It is illegal for a player to move so as to create a string of his or her own stones which is completely surrounded (without liberties) after any surrounded opposing stones are captured."

ps it's illegal to play a move if the stone played changes the color of any nearby stones.
- wording is okay, because any can mean zero.

captures zero stones , changes the color of zero stones...ridiculous.

[Bill Spight]

$$Wc Oops!
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O O O O O . . .
$$ | . O X X X B O . .
$$ | . O X 1 X B O . .
$$ | . O X X X O . . .
$$ | . O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Oops!
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O O O O O . . .
$$ | . O X X X B O . .
$$ | . O X 1 X B O . .
$$ | . O X X X O . . .
$$ | . O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

The rule, as quoted -- somehow I cannot connect to the AGA site now to check the wording --, indicates that is illegal, because it has no liberty after the capture of the stones, which indeed are "any surrounded opposing stones". The rule makes an any-all error. It should also say "removed" instead of "captured", to be clear.

[Bill Spight]

OK, I got the text of the rule from another site.

After a player moves, any stone or string of stones belonging to the opponent which is completely surrounded by the player's own stones is captured, and removed from the board. Such stones become prisoners of the capturing player. It is illegal for a player to move so as to create a string of his or her own stones which is completely surrounded (without liberties) after any surrounded opposing stones are captured.

In context, the rule is clear. The last sentence is colloquial English for this statement:

It is illegal for a player to move so as to create a string of his or her own stones which is completely surrounded (without liberties) after surrounded opposing stones are captured, if there are any.

Whether official rules should be written in colloquial language is another question. Had I been on the rules committee, I would have suggested something like this:

It is illegal for a player to move so as to create a string of his or her own stones which is completely surrounded (without liberties) unless it captures an opposing stone.

[iam3o5am]

not colloquial, just bad.

And I vote for your proposed wording. It is clear and correct.

Enough for me on this one

[Bill Spight]

not colloquial, just bad.

Colloquially we may say, "The collapsing building killed anybody on the ground floor," even if it turns out that there was nobody on the ground floor.

[hyperpape]

Why do you think any necessitates one? "After the horn has sounded, any persons in the park must leave" sounds fine to me. Do we just have different idiolects?

[EdLee]

Why do you think any necessitates one? "After the horn has sounded, any persons in the park must leave" sounds fine to me. Do we just have different idiolects?

First definition returned by Google:

any: 1. used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many. "I don't have any choice"

[EdLee]

I also like Bill's proposed wording. Anyone (Robert?) sees any problems with it ? Does the original (current) wording offer any benefit that Bill's version doesn't ?

Corollary: is Bill's version superior in every way, and in no way inferior,
to the current wording ?