jann wrote:
It is also much easier to recognize repetition after a few cycles than spotting the first move that recreates a position.
No-result rules have these aspects:
1) Generous instead of strict recognition of recreation.
2) The special result no-result that is uncomparable to scored results, such as jigo.
3) For territory scoring, the strategically different behaviours of even cycles with the difference zero of their removed stones and of odd cycles with a non-zero difference of their removed stones.
Quote:
So why Western rules need to "know better" - when staying with the majority leads to easier applicable rules as well?
The majority is beginners and does not know application of whichever rules to long cycles at all.
Japanese, Korean, Chinese (note: not Taiwanese, therefore not in general Asian and Western is not the complement) no-result-like rules are hard to apply because they are confusing, ambiguous, contradictory or incomplete. For ordinary alternation, there should be clarification, such as on my page
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/long_cycle.pdf"If a play creates a cycle, then the game's result depends on the numbers of black and white stones removed from the board during the cycle:
a) If equally many black and white stones have been removed, then the result is a tie.
b) If fewer black than white stones have been removed, then the result is a Black win.
c) If fewer white than black stones have been removed, then the result is a White win."
For traditional results, replace "tie" by "no-result" in this text.
Further clarification is required for rules with hypothetical play.
Only after clarification it becomes meaningful to claim "easier applicable".
However, (2) is not easily applicable. Quite contrarily, it leads to undecidable strategy:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/mistakes.htmlMy long-cycle rules linked further above with the result tie avoid at least this fundamental mistake in rules design.
Actually, my 3-plays Ko Rules are simpler and better:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/3_plays.pdf"If a play creates a cycle, then the game ends prematurely. The result is then exceptional, and depends on the number of plays during the cycle:
- Short cycle: If it is 2 or 3, then the player making the last play loses.
- Long cycle: If it is 4 or greater, then the result is a tie."
Such can be accompanied by a tournament rule for (1).
Although I prefer positional superko because I prefer the greatest simplicity of the rules, the two alternatives above and my Basic-Fixed Ko Rules as a third alternative are possible and each easier and simpler than no-result rules.
Quote:
A robust, prisoner-aware threefold repetition rule
Threefold is unnecessarily complicated. Any number of repetitions of a cycle, including just one cycle, is good enough.
Prisoner-aware is possible but unnecessarily complicated. No-result rules and my Long-cycle rules have it. My 3-plays Ko Rules and Basic-Fixed Ko Rules do not use or need it.
Quote:
It allows using superko with passes lifting bans (fixing 1-eye-flaw and similar problems).
Where "superko" does not refer to a superko rule.
The other mentioned ko rules also handle all positions.
Quote:
It also makes suicide allowable even in the basic ko phase - one less extra rule.
Wrong. It is always necessary specify how to execute a play (with or without suicide).
Some ko rules have a side effect on suicide. Superko has the side effect that it automatically prohibits single-stone suicide. Some other ko rules (no-result or long-cycle ko rules) have the side effect that recurring a cycle with a non-zero prisoner difference is strategically wrong under territory scoring. A cycle with suicide of several stones is fun for the researcher.
Quote:
And for territory scoring, it normalizes hypothetical play (in defending lines with infinite stone losses).
The other ko rules allow handling of hypothetical play regardless of whether such is called normalisation.