beating a dead horse: my thoughts on suicide.

[LocoRon]

Every stone is ingrained with a strong will to live.

Even stones dead as they stand desire to cling to life for as long as they can.

Only the most mentally unstable stones are capable of suicide.

Please, if you know of any stone that seems like it might be considering suicide, seek help for it immediately.

Even the most desperate stones may yet live a long, fulfilling life.

[nagano]

How is additionally forbidding suicide as simple as possible?

If I have to program a representation of a go board, I need to add a check for suicide, and most people I've tried to teach go to try suicide at least once.

It's not simpler if I need to give additional instructions, even if those instructions are really easy to give.

Structurally simpler.

[hyperpape]

As you are probably aware, I explain the concepts at length here. If you need further clarification, let me know. If you disagree with something specific, then tell me what it is. You can hardly expect me to repeat every detail in all of my posts.

That's all well and good, but what on Earth does it have to do with logic? It really seems to be a statement of your personal preferences, based on experience with different games.

[nagano]

As you are probably aware, I explain the concepts at length here. If you need further clarification, let me know. If you disagree with something specific, then tell me what it is. You can hardly expect me to repeat every detail in all of my posts.

That's all well and good, but what on Earth does it have to do with logic? It really seems to be a statement of your personal preferences, based on experience with different games.

You have to go out of the way to make suicide illegal; if you do not it is legal as a natural consequence of the rules. Why add random rules that aren't needed? We might as well add dice!

[hyperpape]

That's simplicity, not logic.

While we're at it, exactly what is the value of simplicity? It's a bit easier to teach beginners. That's good, worth trying for, but just one advantage among many. You seem to think it's worth more.

[nagano]

That's simplicity, not logic.

While we're at it, exactly what is the value of simplicity? It's a bit easier to teach beginners. That's good, worth trying for, but just one advantage among many. You seem to think it's worth more.

It is illogical to add rules that are not needed and may create complications. It is logical not to do this. You seem to be coming at this from the angle "How does this benefit the player?" But really this is more of a game design issue, and the effect to the player is not immediately obvious. The more rules you try to add to a game, the more undesirable side effects begin to arise. This is really a core principle in the design of perfect information abstract strategy games. I know it sounds a bit vague, really the only way to fully understand it is to try designing some games on your own, and to try to deal with problems that your rules create.

[hyperpape]

I'm coming at this from the angle that this has nothing to do with logic.

You say that adding rules can create complications. That is true. That is a cost to adding rules. When you say that logic dictates that we minimize the rules, you are either not using the word 'logic properly' or arguing in bad faith. I imagine it's the former.

I'm harping on this point because once you say "it's a matter of logic", it sounds like you've stated an absolutely compelling. After all, one must follow the rules of logic (sorry Mr. Fairbairn). But that's only because the laws of logic don't tell us about things like the rules of Go.

I think you should say something like one of the possibilities:

• I, Nagano, really like simplicity
• Experience has shown that the games with better play are simple (and you might add "given my evaluation of better play")
• If your game is not simple, you will incur various costs, which must be balanced against any other benefits of those rules (and perhaps you think there aren't any benefits...)

[nagano]

The word logic is in many cases meaningless apart from the goal it is applied to. Given a certain goal, there is a logically best way to proceed. In this case the goals are:

1. There must be no chance.
2. There must be no unnecessary rules.
3. There must be no unresolvable situations.

If you accept these three rules, then my reasoning is sound. If you do not, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. But seriously, try designing an abstract strategy game for yourself, and see if you do not at some point revert to these ideas.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" - Albert Einstein

[Suji]

The word logic is in many cases meaningless apart from the goal it is applied to. Given a certain goal, there is a logically best way to proceed. In this case the goals are:

1. There must be no chance.
2. There must be no unnecessary rules.
3. There must be no unresolvable situations.

If you accept these three rules, then my reasoning is sound. If you do not, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. But seriously, try designing an abstract strategy game for yourself, and see if you do not at some point revert to these ideas.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" - Albert Einstein

The options that you present point to checkers, chess, go, reversi, and any other number of strategy games all of which are perfectly decent games. Just because you came to the rules of go from designing an abstract strategy game doesn't mean everyone will. In fact, some would say that since go has multiple different rule sets and chess has only one chess would then be the "perfect" game.

P.S. I'm taking the devil's advocate point of view here.

[jts]

The word logic is in many cases meaningless apart from the goal it is applied to. Given a certain goal, there is a logically best way to proceed. In this case the goals are:

1. There must be no chance.
2. There must be no unnecessary rules.
3. There must be no unresolvable situations.

If you accept these three rules, then my reasoning is sound. If you do not, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. But seriously, try designing an abstract strategy game for yourself, and see if you do not at some point revert to these ideas.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" - Albert Einstein

But - I think what only you and a small coterie of like-minded individuals accept is that "no suicide" is an unnecessary rule whereas "suicide is allowed" is the obvious but implicit conclusion of the basic capture rule.

[MarylandBill]

The word logic is in many cases meaningless apart from the goal it is applied to. Given a certain goal, there is a logically best way to proceed. In this case the goals are:

1. There must be no chance.

Well, assuming you mean no truly random element, then yes, this is true since this is one of the basic definitions of an abstract strategy game.

2. There must be no unnecessary rules.

The problem here is that people may not agree on the definition of unnecessary. The no suicide rule cuts both ways. At times it will benefit you and at times it will hurt you. The fact that most Go codes have the rule suggest that many believe it is a necessary rule.

More importantly, I would point out that "necessary" depends on the effect you are looking for in the game. Is the Queen's move necessary in chess? Not strictly since of course it is a relatively recent innovation to the game of chess. On the flip side, if you replace the Queen with a less powerful piece, the game changes considerably. Is either right or wrong?

If suicide is allowed, then one could use it to do all sorts of interesting things, like turning a group of dead stones into a seki position (At least I think this is possible, someone better versed in the game will have to address that). But perhaps that is not what the people who developed the current no suicide rule wanted to prevent.

3. There must be no unresolvable situations.

I am not sure I entirely agree. I do agree that such situations should be rare, but there is, I think, a certain value in having certain conditions that can allow a draw to occur. While normal draws in chess are kind of boring, stalemate (particularly if the player stalemated looked like they were in a lost position), can be quite exciting.

If you accept these three rules, then my reasoning is sound. If you do not, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. But seriously, try designing an abstract strategy game for yourself, and see if you do not at some point revert to these ideas.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" - Albert Einstein

I think I would be careful of comparing game design with theoretical physics. Einstein was talking about modeling the Universe how it actually is.

--
Bill

[Laman]

If suicide is allowed, then one could use it to do all sorts of interesting things, like turning a group of dead stones into a seki position (At least I think this is possible, someone better versed in the game will have to address that). But perhaps that is not what the people who developed the current no suicide rule wanted to prevent.

i think it is the opposite, that the suicide is not very useful, only in rare cases creating more ko threats or changing the outcome of a semeai. if i imagine situations where it can be used, i think both allowing and disallowing suicide keeps the game equally fair, logical, consistent and strategic.

given the two premises above, i would say that from a view of an ordinary player, it doesn't really matter if we (dis)allow suicide. then applying the law of inertia - most players are satisfied with current rules and adding suicide doesn't really improve quality of their game experience (= enjoyment, in my opinion the highest goal of any game), so i vote for staying in the current state

if there were no go and nagano were designing a completely new game, there would be no problem with allowing suicide

[robinz]

Amazing that such a simple (and, from the point of view of the game of go in practice, not particularly important) issue seems to arouse such strong feelings

I must say that I'm pretty much neutral on suicide (and voted that way in the poll). Unlike many others on this thread, I know exactly where nagano is coming from, and agree that (purely as an aesthetic choice, if nothing else) one should not add extra rules to a game unless they are necessary (for balancing the game, or making the gameplay more interesting, and so on). However, I don't think that it's the case that forbidding suicide is an additional rule, and that if it wasn't there then the other rules automatically allow it - which seems to be nagano's assumption. In fact, it can be argued that rule-sets which allow suicide are more complicated - then each turn is typically divided into three stages, namely playing a stone, removing any opposing stones with no liberties remaining, and finally removing any of your own stones with no liberties remaining. With suicide banned, only the first two stages remain, along with a note that one is not allowed to make a play which would leave any of one's one stones without liberties after first removing any opposing stones without any. Which of the two rulesets is "simpler" strikes me as a pretty arbitrary (and subjective) choice.

The more important question is which leads to the better/most interesting game. I'm not a strong enough or experienced enough player to really know, but it seems that at the very least there is no concensus here, given the differences in the various rulesets in existence. I'm not even sure if it has ever really been discussed - but it is clear that, in most normal game situations, whether suicide is allowed or not makes no difference. (And those where it does will almost always be where suicide allows an extra ko threat.)

[hyperpape]

The word logic is in many cases meaningless apart from the goal it is applied to. Given a certain goal, there is a logically best way to proceed. In this case the goals are:

1. There must be no chance.
2. There must be no unnecessary rules.
3. There must be no unresolvable situations.

If 'logic' is meaningless outside of specifying a goal, then that tells against your usage. After all, John F. could walk into the thread and say the Japanese rules are the most logical because they best adhere to tradition, which is his goal (or one of his). And then the two of you could go back and forth, each saying his approach is logical, with no hope of rational discussion. Basically, if your claim is that from your goals, a certain approach logically follows, then that approach isn't so much supported by logic, as supported by your goals. And your goals are not logical (or illogical)--they're just your goals.

But also, you're wrong about the point of definition. The Merriam Webster definition 1a. is a pretty good stab at a definition of logic. It might not be crystal clear if you've never encountered the subject, but it's roughly on target. More or less, logic studies which sentences can be inferred from which other sentences.

It's no more a logical truth that some rules of Go are the best than it's a mathematical truth that this bottle of wine costs more than I should spend (though logic and math will be relevant to each bit of reasoning). If my brother buys the bottle of wine, I can't say "that's unmathematical!" though I can use math to explain to him that he will no longer be able to pay his rent.

[jts]

More or less, logic studies which sentences can be inferred from which other sentences.

Not that I disagree with you very strongly - I think your position makes more sense than Nagano's - but this is a very recent innovation in what "logic" means which was really only pioneered in the late 19th century. Before that, if someone wrote a book on "Logic", only a very small part of it would be about analysis, and most of it would be about the nature of mind, knowledge, rationality, intension, etc.