Territory-style rules with a group tax

[jaeup]

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?)

On the question of komi you can just run KataGo with the territory ruleset and turn on group tax. I might just do that when I have time for 9x9 and investigate actual lines of play

The result will be interesting, but I am sure the reinforcement learning for the KataGo network is performed with "no group tax", and the result will be different from that of the network trained with group tax. But anyway, it is worth investigating.

[pgwq]

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.

[lightvector]

On the question of komi you can just run KataGo with the territory ruleset and turn on group tax. I might just do that when I have time for 9x9 and investigate actual lines of play

The result will be interesting, but I am sure the reinforcement learning for the KataGo network is performed with "no group tax", and the result will be different from that of the network trained with group tax.

Why would I go through all the trouble of implementing group tax rules in KataGo's engine, and then at the last moment, decide not train the neural net on those rules**?

The reinforcement learning DOES have all of the rules. KataGo's neural net is trained to handle the whole range of the basic rules that the engine is capable of supporting, which are described precisely here: https://lightvector.github.io/KataGo/rules.html. That means that KataGo should have reached far-superhuman levels in group tax Go, exactly at the same time as it learned "normal" Go rules, and should be a master at the specific differences you should need to adjust your strategy and joseki and openings by for group tax rules. And yes, that means that KataGo should also be experienced with things like Button Go already too, because Button Go is also part of the implemented rules.


**Well, actually the latest "g170" run technically isn't trained on non-square boards, like 9x13, or 10x16, or whatever. So that is a thing that I went through the trouble to implement, but didn't train on. Oops. Because neural nets are amazing though, they still seem immensely strong on those boards, probably superhumanly despite no training - because of all the experience learned from normal boards. Also humans probably don't have much experience either on those sizes.

[jaeup]

Great. I knew KataGo has quite a few scoring modes, but I admit that I haven't followed the way KataGo is implemented. I am surprised to hear its ultra-flexiblility. (I really need to learn it someday.) I hope other AI makers follow such a strategy. I was tired of them saying "My AI is super-strong, but it can only play under area scoring with 7.5 komi". (Well, that was about a year ago, and maybe the trends have changed now.)

[iopq]

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

[iopq]

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.

[Bill Spight]

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

[iopq]

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

[Bill Spight]

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.

[pgwq]

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.

[jaeup]

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.

[iopq]

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

[jann]

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).

[jaeup]

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.

[iopq]

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