Passless lentears?

[Elom]

If I'm understanding correctly, wouldn't a player that's losing just force the game to coontinue until one player ends up having to fill an important eye and lose their group?

Allowing sacrifice makes for complications, which Elom has not accounted for in this sketch of the rules. However, it is almost certain that the player who can force the opponent to fill an eye and lose their group is the winner, not the loser. That's one main reason why, to approximate modern territory go, you allow a player to return a prisoner as a move instead of playing a move on the board. As Matti points out, straight no pass go is quite a different game from regular go.

Without passes there would be no such thing as a settled position.

Passes were invented in the 20th century. Games ended by agreement, not by consecutive passes. In fact, one of the questions raised by the famous 1928 rules dispute in Japan ( https://senseis.xmp.net/?TenThousandYea ... ulesCrisis ) was whether a player had the right to make a move or an obligation.

Anyway, if suicide is not allowed, then you can certainly have positions that are settled because the player whose turn it is has no play and therefore cannot kill the opponent's stones.

Yes that's how I interpreted it. I thought the dominant player would eventually have to start filling up their eyes if the game went on long enough but I realise that won't necessarily be the case. i.e.

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

I thought after black captures at a the continuation would invariably mean black filling in his own eyes and giving white a chance to make a comeback, but of course white would have no legal moves so the game would end.

A single stone suicide dos not cahnge the position, so it should be counted as a pass-

I guess Elom's suggestion implicitly assumed a kind of prohibition of the whole board repetition (probably PSK, but can be SSK or others). Any set of statements without specifying its attitude towards the whole board repetition cannot really make a rigorous ruleset.

So, in this kind of attempt, usually a singe stone suicide is prohibited automatically by PSK. Whether it is "prohibited" or "allowed but forfeit instantly" is only a matter of technically. I prefer the former for the informal rule explanation, but prefer the latter for the formal rulewriting, because I feel that "deciding the winner" should always be the ending of the rule application algorithm.

Yes, I haven't thoroughly analysed the result of the special-self capture rule--the hope was that by allowing self-capture only if your opponent can't then capture would make positions such as the one drawn by splatted impossible, ruling out any way to force your opponent to fill in their own eyes. Although even if that was, no passes appear to imply that white would still be behind on points even after capture! I also prefer to end a rule algorithm with 'deciding the winner' so stated it as such

Although perhaps such a position might occur if one player played all their stones together. It would still be impossible to win on points, however, but done fast enough could get a win on time. This is where another idea I forgot to mention comes in

--if one player runs out of time, their opponent plays their stones and:
----must, on any turn, use your lenses to capture theirs whenever possible
----must, on any turn, play as to make it impossible to capture your lenses whenever possible

But does it work

[Elom]

I tried to smooth out a few of the rough edges of this idea, hoping to combine both practicality and tradition, to make now a slightly more thought out sketch, or perhaps at this point draft, of the ruleset, with no passes and a forget-me-not-situational-super-ko .

1 Each placer selects a lens type from which to acquire points, normally by nigiri, and places lenses of that type onto points the board (with adjacent points denoted by segments being drawn between them) for their ply (no passes) unless the situation in line 3 occurs; a ply begins by the placing of a lens and ends with the placing of a lens, except in scoring. A lens becomes a prisoner and is removed from the board when of every possible point it could be on in which not all lenses are of its type if it could switch points with any adjacent lenses of the same type any number of times are adjacent to lenses of a different type and not adjacent to any empty points if more than half of the lenses of a different type are of the same type to themselves. (standard komi on 19^2 two player lentears is given by seven black (sente) lenses becoming prisoners at the start of the bout (placing them in the lid of the bowl white (gote) lenses) and adding a half to black's lens score at the end of the bout.)
2 An automatic loss is given to the placer who places a lens either: creating a board position (with the same lens type to be placed) the same number of times or more times than than the number of plys made since the last time that board position or, b: resulting with lenses of the type played being captured at the end of the ply and the opponent capturing a lens of that type the next ply.
3 If a placer runs out of time, the placer can no longer place any lenses while the other placer(s) with time left can place lenses of the type the placer that ran out of time acquires points from each time it's the placer that ran out of time's turn to ply (if there is more than one placer with time left, the placer who places lenses of the type the placer that ran out of time acquires points from alternates each round in the order of who places after the placer that ran out of time) and:
-4 must use that players lenses to capture their lenses any turn it becomes possible.
-5 must on any turn possible place as to make it impossible to capture that players lenses.
-6 implied from line 1 but for extra measure, if a placement is made that results in an automatic loss, the placer that placed loses, not any player who ran out of time whose score is acquired from a lens type of the lens that was placed.
7 Scoring begins by pointing to all lenses on the board you think could not avoid becoming prisoners (if the bout continued), with your opponent signalling agreement by removing those lenses, or by all players running out of time (no removing of lenses in this latter case). Then place any prisoner lenses onto points from which any movement of that lens along adjacent points any number of times could only ever result in it being on a point where any adjacent points either do not have a lens placed on it or has a lens of the same type on it. Then count any point where if a typeless lens was on it, any movement of that lens along adjacent points any number of times could only ever result in it being on a point where any adjacent points either do not have a lens placed on it or has a lens of the same type to any other lens it could be adjacent to at any other point it could move to as part of the score of the type whose lenses the moving lens could be adjacent to. The winner is the placer that has acquired the most points at the end of the bout.

I thought of one-a-half useful possibilities multiplayer go and decided to make the ruleset general for more than two players, but ended up with the part 'the placer who places lenses of the type the placer that ran out of time acquires points from alternates each round in the order of who places after the placer that ran out of time'; 3, 4, 5 and 6 are for a special situation anyway. Well now it's time, when compared with other rulesets, to put the stones on the board finding fatal flaws (and perhaps interesting possibilities in) these passless forget-me-not situational super ko rules of go . . .

[Elom0]

I no longer see the need for the other commonly used rulesets . . .

Lentear Rules:

1- Seven black stones are placed in white's lid as prisoners at the beginning of the game. Territory scoring with no passes instead, one player can just secure all their groups and then decide to stop playing moves entirely until the opponent decides to count the score, or the game may end by agreement, which is when a player touches groups they think should be removed from the board as prisoners at the end of their turn, and the other player then removes the touched groups of their opponents on their turn, and the player who touched the groups. This means a player should only adjust the position of stones before they play their stone or during their opponent's time after they press the clock. If a player wins. Winning a game by 7 territory points or more or resignation earns 1 board point, and the opponent gains 0 board points. Winning by less than 7 points splits the board points between you an your opponent, with you getting your winning margin over 7, and your opponent gaining (7 - (your winning margin))/7. In league games or multi-game matches, board points carry over, and in rating system it should give points for thhe result of each game according to board points, so board points are important.

2-You start your turn by removing any groups without liberties, then you play a stone, then you finish your turn the same way you began, by removing any groups without liberties. However, if you remove the opponent's stones at both the beginning and end of your turn, then you win.

These two rules do away with the issues in territory without the need for an exact number of stones, as in Ing, or the AGA rules' pass stones, which feel clunky and unelegant as a mechanic to me; instead of saying, 'when you pass, you must give a stone to your opponent as a prisoner', just say, 'you can't pass, you must play every turn as in Chess/Shogi (you must end the game by agreement)'. I don't see how pass fights can occur since there are no passes ?.

For more than two players then I'd use 'the last player with places to play and have liberties (area with group tax) wins, groups are only captured when more than half of the occupied liberties are from an opponent of the same colour'

[CDavis7M]

I no longer see the need for the other commonly used rulesets . . .

But these rules are more complex than stone scoring rules and less elegant than the traditional Japanese rules.

The supposed issues with these rulesets only arise if losing sight of their purpose.

[Elom0]

I no longer see the need for the other commonly used rulesets . . .

But these rules are more complex than stone scoring rules and less elegant than the traditional Japanese rules.

The supposed issues with these rulesets only arise if losing sight of their purpose.

Hmm, maybe I don't quite get it yet, well, area scoring is physically more tedious than territory scoring, and of course has free tiere with which solving with pass stones seems a tad clumsy, especially if you're used to using Japanese, Korean or Chinese rules. I'm not able to see how they're less elegant than Japanese rules, I think I need some enlightenment here! I think Ultimate Go rules more complex than Lentear rules but I should compare them more precisely to see which is better!

[Elom0]

I no longer see the need for the other commonly used rulesets . . .

But these rules are more complex than stone scoring rules and less elegant than the traditional Japanese rules.

The supposed issues with these rulesets only arise if losing sight of their purpose.

Hmm, maybe I don't quite get it yet, well, area scoring is physically more tedious than territory scoring, and of course has free tiere with which solving with pass stones seems a tad clumsy, especially if you're used to using Japanese, Korean or Chinese rules. I'm not able to see how they're less elegant than Japanese rules, I think I need some enlightenment here! I think Ultimate Go rules more complex than Lentear rules but I should compare them more precisely to see which is better!

https://senseis.xmp.net/?PassFight This seems problematic since it implies that passes are the only way to end a game by count. Pass-fights occur because there is no counting phase, not because there are no passes. What I mean by no-pass go is that the game ends by agreement. For some reason my brain is able to understand this now: Ultimate Go uses prisoner return which seems more elegant than pass stones, and Ultimate Go's excellently an axiomatic structuring of the ruleset letting most other concepts emerge organically, which to me also renders the other rulesets obsolete.

[CDavis7M]

I just meant that the traditional Japanese rules are elegant because they don't fuss with complexities/rigor in the rules, don't require tedious, extraneous scoring activity, but also demand understanding of life and death. It all seems more in line with being an art.

The "modern" (1940s) Japanse concerns over whether the game can end with a ko seem to lose sight of the art. Just let the game end with no result or recognize territory scoring as a shortcut of area scoring where there is no need to resolve a ko and lose a point.

Meanwhile stone scoring is simple because it has the fewest rules. Just place stones and count them. Scoring directly corresponds to game play and there are no catches.

My main thought is that rules should be as simple as possible and gameplay shouldn't suffer because of scoring.

By the way, in a tsumego book I have they explicitly state that a player cannot pass -- it everything easier.

[Elom0]

I just meant that the traditional Japanese rules are elegant because they don't fuss with complexities/rigor in the rules, don't require tedious, extraneous scoring activity, but also demand understanding of life and death. It all seems more in line with being an art.

I take that point, and that's good for pros, but what about beginners? Ideally a ruleset would be both foolproof without sacrificiing artistic merit, just like international pro tournaments should get together (which is why the lack of international tournaments based in Japan by Japanese sponsors is the single biggest tragedy in top-level, professional go worse than losing either all other international tournaments or losing all Japanese tournaments. Also, each country and even pro organisation has it's own style of structuring and conducting tournament, so the cultural or intangible heritage and loss of diversity is one of the most major sins be it biodiversity or tournament diversity. To make it obvious, even in the event of a universal, olympic ruleset being devised everysingle go player without exception would probably support every international tournament sticking to the ruleset of it's country, or in the case of Ing, company). I guess in that sense you are right; a combination of Ultimate Go rule and Lentear Rules if Yoave doesn't mind (Ultimate Lentear Rulesss???) would be better considering artisry.

The "modern" (1940s) Japanse concerns over whether the game can end with a ko seem to lose sight of the art. Just let the game end with no result or recognize territory scoring as a shortcut of area scoring where there is no need to resolve a ko and lose a point.

I agree

Meanwhile stone scoring is simple because it has the fewest rules. Just place stones and count them. Scoring directly corresponds to game play and there are no catches.

My main thought is that rules should be as simple as possible and gameplay shouldn't suffer because of scoring.

By the way, in a tsumego book I have they explicitly state that a player cannot pass -- it everything easier.

'Just placing stones and counting them' is usually more tedious than territory counting due to the sheer number of stones, even if you only count for one side (which in itself seems not so artistic). Which means that if you can change territory scoring like in AGA rules it automatically makes territory scoring superior. In addition, there's hardly anything elegant or artistic about the free tiere that may occur in area scoring. And thirdly, in area scoring there's the added inelegance. In territory scoring you can just put 7 black stones at the beginning of the

That's why only when there are 3 or more players is area scoring better because there is no need for komi, free tiere is not so much of an issue and when there are more than 2 players and in four-player go each person only has to count about 90 stones (unless they're untrusting of any of the other players, haha), so in this sense you are right, although I should add multiplayer go doesn't just make area scoring better, it makes 'play until you have no legal moves left' better too which is the simplest and most elegant ruleset of all, so group-tax area scoring does indeed seem best for more than two players.

But when you have 1-Lots of stones 2-Free teire 3-Komi added on externally, which are created when there are only two players, then area scoring is no longer elegant. Territory scoring with passes doesn't have these issues, but it's only elegant and artistic if you're a pro, haha. So one has to remove passes and end games by agreement, and then territory scoring can work.

[Elom0]

1-If a stone has been placed on the board as many or more times than the number of points on the board, the game is a draw. So you can have a normal ko rule with no need for superko or situational superko.
2-Self-capture allowed if your opponent doesn't capture your stones next turn.
3-Territory scoring, put seven black stones as prisoners in white's lid at the beginning of the game.
4-No passes, game ends by agreement. One player can however cease to play any more moves until the game ends by agreement.

These rules do not seem less elegant, more complex, more tedious or less artistic than either Chinese or Japanese rules at any time. Especially the self-capture rule, which cannot even be categorised by most tables as they often either have 'suicide allowed or not allowed' and don't even consider that an in-between rule is possible.

Now a komi of exactly 7 seems correct for 13x13 go. For 19x19 go, a fractional value may be removed from white's score, although what this fraction is is important because territory points carry over in leagues and multi-game matches, with a maximum of 7 for winning by 7 or more or by resignation or timeout, and rating systems will give you for each game the points you carry over over 7, no pun intended, hehe. Actually I now prefer to skip boards smaller than 13x13 and just teach beginners directly from 13x13, and only talk about endgame and life&death, not faff about fuseki or set-patterns.

I just realised for territory scoring you can instead say, 'play until you can only self atari or self capture, after which you must cease playing while the opponent plays their stones from your prisoners lid instead of their bowl. When both players have only either self-stari or self-capture moves left, the player with less prisoners wins (after adding a fractional white prisoner).

For more than two players:
1-If a stone has been placed on the board as many or more times than the number of points on the board, the game is a draw. So you can have a normal ko rule with no need for superko or situational superko.
2-A group must have more than half of it's liberties removed by stones of the same colour to be captured.
3-Self-atari or self-capture are allowed unless the only moves you can play are those two types of move. The first-placed player is the last to have legal moves on the board!

Sorry for the repetition .

[Elom0]

In the original ruleset, players couldn't pass, but could instead choose what I now call 'halting', essesntially from then on they must pass every turn until the other player decides to count the game. However the ruleset has been improved to removed this and the multiplayer ruleset has improved, in fact now it's again one ruleset which covers both! Taking inspiration from Ultimate Baduk to make the ruleset even more elegant.

I propose to call the game . . .

Lentears AKA Tears of Heaven (Heaventears) AKA Rainboard
1) A square grid of (13+6n)^2 orthogonally connected locations exist upon which lenses of different colours can be dropped or cried unto or rained. Each colour starts the bout with free cries equal to 360 divided by the number of colour.
2) Once on a location and only if their colour is next to be cried, lenses can only move by switching position with other orthogonally adjacent lenses on the same working team any number of times, with a working team being lenses of all colours except the colour of the next lens to be cried.
3) If it wouldn't be possible for a lens to move to a location adjacent to a location without a lens on it even if that colour was next to cry a lens, then if either that colour of lens is the only colour upon which this applies or that colour of lens is not next to be cried, it is removed from the grid and becomes a prisoner. If a colour of lens has lenses become prisoners both before and after their colour of lens is cried with no other colour of lens cried in between, then that colour is considered to have dropped/cried/rained irresponsibly by letting their lenses become prisoners even beside their own cry, and that colour runs out of free cries.
4)The aim for each colour is to have the highest empty location score, the sum total of safe locations upon which only lenses of that colour could possibly be cried unto in one cry, minus the number of that colours lenses that are prisoners.
5) 1 Victory point is scored for each colour you have a higher empty location score than, and half a victory point is scored for those whom you share the same empty location score, and then your total number of victory points are divided by the number of opponents played. Alternatively, the implied proportion of board control between the colours is determined by the differences in their empty location score, and each player scores victory points according to the implied location score divided by 360.

I think this is elegant enough

In combat between only 2 colours, then at the start of the bout the 7 lenses of the first colour to play are prisoners and the first colour to play only has 173 cries, except in a handicap bout in which both colour start off with 180 free cries as usual but the first player uses an agreed upon number of free cries before the second colour can also start making cries. In a knockout tournament in which a clear winner must be determined, in the case of a draw players invert the playing order and then play a blitz game to determine the winner.