AGA modification, would it work?

[Bill Spight]

I expect "the first to pass wins in case of a tie" can lead to pass-fights. However, matters are worse because an early pass could become a tedomari in anticipation of a later tie.

The first pass is worth no more than a Japanese dame and at least as much as later passes. Since, by AGA rules, White must make the last pass, there can be no pass fight over who gets the last pass. And if a player wants the first pass, she can simply make it. But taking a dame is always at least as good as making the first pass.

I know that you regard some things as pass fights which others do not, but what kind of pass fight do you foresee?

[RobertJasiek]

Bill, I have understood tiger314 so that the game ends on the first pass, but maybe he means something else? As I say, disambiguation is necessary.

tiger314, "only the first pass" matters is a typical trigger for pass-fights under some other rulesets. Why is your ruleset still area scoring? Please write it down carefully.

All, tedomari means that a pass can be valuable before, e.g., playing dame, e.g., when there are an even number of dame. Therefore, do not try to argue that a pass would be played after all dame because a SINGLE dame is more valuable. Tedomari is not about a single dame.

[tiger314]

Bill, I have understood tiger314 so that the game ends on the first pass, but maybe he means something else? As I say, disambiguation is necessary.

The ruleset is identical to the AGA complete ruleset (including pass stones, white to pass last, 2 or 3 passes to end the game, suicide prohibited, play it out to determine life...) except for the following changes:
-rule 3: the compensation value is changed to: 7 for an even game, X for a handicap game
-a rule is added that in case of both players having an equal number of points (after adjusting for any compensation according to rule 3) the player to have played the first pass of the game (regardless of whether it was followed by another pass or not) is the winner

Consider even games only, I still haven't thought about the komi value for handicap games.

tiger314, "only the first pass" matters is a typical trigger for pass-fights under some other rulesets. Why is your ruleset still area scoring? Please write it down carefully.

The AGA ruleset is an area ruleset since it has all the features of an area ruleset. The area properties are not changed by altering komi or using the additional rule to solve equal point situations.

All, tedomari means that a pass can be valuable before, e.g., playing dame, e.g., when there are an even number of dame. Therefore, do not try to argue that a pass would be played after all dame because a SINGLE dame is more valuable. Tedomari is not about a single dame.

Passing before filling dame can never create a better result than passing after it has been filled, but some sequences can achieve the same result with an earlier pass. As you have pointed out, one player can pass instead of filling dame when there is an even number of dame points, but the same player would have been the first to pass after filling dame anyway. This player cannot reinforce for free if the game is too close, unlike under the unaltered AGA ruleset.

[RobertJasiek]

tiger314, for your rule, I do not (now) see pass-fights. You do not retain area scoring but create a new scoring system related to area scoring.

[Bill Spight]

tiger314, for your rule, I do not (now) see pass-fights. You do not retain area scoring but create a new scoring system related to area scoring.

As far as I can tell, it produces the same win-loss results as area scoring with a half point button.

[tiger314]

tiger314, for your rule, I do not (now) see pass-fights. You do not retain area scoring but create a new scoring system related to area scoring.

As far as I can tell, it produces the same win-loss results as area scoring with a half point button.

The difference from button go is firstly the fact that there are no exceptions to the superko rule and secondly the simplicity. You do not need to introduce a new type of move (taking the button) which seems unnatural. It also gets rid of half points, which some people consider too artificial.

[Pio2001]

Hi,
I personnaly prefer the AGA rules, because the goal of the game is easier to understand : to get at least a given number of intersections.
With this new rule, the goal would be to get at least a given number of intersections, or to be the first to pass if this number is missed by one unit.

[tiger314]

Hi,
I personnaly prefer the AGA rules, because the goal of the game is easier to understand : to get at least a given number of intersections.
With this new rule, the goal would be to get at least a given number of intersections, or to be the first to pass if this number is missed by one unit.

The goal you state applies to all area rulesets. What puzzles me is why do most people think about the AGA rules as a slightly altered territory scoring ruleset and not as an area ruleset (like you do).

[Bill Spight]

What puzzles me is why do most people think about the AGA rules as a slightly altered territory scoring ruleset and not as an area ruleset (like you do).

Why? History. Before the adoption of AGA rules, the vast majority of players in the US played by Japanese rules. The use of pass stones allowed those players to score their games pretty much as they were used to doing, even though the AGA rules actually used area scoring. (In fact, a lot of players at tournaments actually played by Japanese rules and didn't tell the tournament director. )

[oren]

The goal you state applies to all area rulesets. What puzzles me is why do most people think about the AGA rules as a slightly altered territory scoring ruleset and not as an area ruleset (like you do).

I view it as a ruleset that lets you play territory scoring with a tiny amount of overhead to make rules issues easier to deal with and happens to equal area scoring in the end.