AGA rule wording

[DrStraw]

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.

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.

I teach beginners by saying:

A move is complete when any captured stones are removed from the board. No stones may remain on the board after a move is complete unless they have at least one liberty.

[EdLee]

I teach beginners by saying:

A move is complete when any captured stones are removed from the board. No stones may remain on the board after a move is complete unless they have at least one liberty.

Is there a problem with the first sentence; in particular, the "when" ?

Here is the intended meaning: If a move captures any stones, then
the move is complete after the captured stones are removed
from the board.

The quoted wording does not make clear if the "when"
means "only when" or "when and only when,"
but a move can be complete without involving
any captured stones at all.

[Polama]

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 ?

I think his translation from colloquial English is a clear step up.

Pedagogically, I think the original form is slightly preferable to the alternative suggestion, in that it's very explicit this is all about liberties at all times. Bill's uses the fact that a capture always vacates a liberty, but that's not something immediately obvious to somebody who has never played before. Thus it reads more like a special exemption, then a natural outcome of "remove opposing stones first" and "no suicide".

[DrStraw]

I teach beginners by saying:

A move is complete when any captured stones are removed from the board. No stones may remain on the board after a move is complete unless they have at least one liberty.

Is there a problem with the first sentence; in particular, the "when" ?

Here is the intended meaning: If a move captures any stones, then
the move is complete after the captured stones are removed
from the board.

The quoted wording does not make clear if the "when"
means "only when" or "when and only when,"
but a move can be complete without involving
any captured stones at all.

That is implicit in the word "any".

[hyperpape]

While I disagree with Bill on the meaning of "any", I like his suggested wording.

[Bill Spight]

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?

No, we don't. See my remark about "anybody" on the ground floor. Colloquial English is not logical. "Any" and "all" can get mixed up, as can "and" and "or". (I have noted that sometimes this confuses native German speakers, BTW.)

In context, the AGA rule statement is clear enough. But from a logical standpoint it uses "any" where it should use "all".

[Bill Spight]

No stones may remain on the board after a move is complete unless they have at least one liberty.

This is the approach of the Japanese 1989 rules.

[Splatted]

I think any is the correct word here and the quoted sentence means exactly what it's supposed to mean. It makes no assumption about the presence of captured enemy stones, it simply allows for the possibility, and I wouldn't even call it a colloquialism.