Stating this Ruleset as Compactly as Possible

[Mr. Mormon]

I'm currently trying to state my preferred ruleset:

NZ rules with a two-pass ending and the second-to-last passing player begins resumed play (not with a pass) after a dead stones dispute

as compactly as possible. This is attempt 1.0:

1. Black, White etc. quits, passes, or puts One's piece on an empty intersection, removing Other's without paths along the lines to empty spots through only Other's then for One's-avoid board states of One's past turns.
2. If One passes following a pass Other resumes 1 by no pass or agrees on pieces to remove before each sums One's, empty spots without paths to Other's not through One's, and 7 if White if Black had no first free turns.

It is assumed that equipment is already available and therefore needs no definition. Are all necessary inferences, while not necessarily easy, acceptable? Notably, I leave out jargon, who wins upon quitting or scoring, explain what a path is only once, omit 'pieces' after the first possessive, and use 'One' and 'Other' instead of 'one' and 'the other' (or 'the opponent'). I define komi-less handicap at the end.

[willemien]

- i suggest ending with 4 passes. (as in an earlier discussion here)

- why don't you just cut and paste the complete rules.

(if they are compact they should be short)

[Mr. Mormon]

- I don't know the point of a fourth pass, but an effective third pass is possible because suicide is allowed, and any disadvantaged player can force play to resume by disputing stones anyway.
- 1. and 2. are the complete rules, but for reference, here's the NZ rules (which are necessarily longer for readability and to include jargon and equipment):

New Zealand Rules of Go

Go is played on a board with a 19 x 19 grid, by two players, one using a set of (about) 180 white counters, the other a set of (about) 181 black counters. These counters are called stones.

Adjacent intersections are those intersections connected by lines of the grid, with no intervening intersections.

Two stones of the same colour are connected if they are on adjacent intersections or if they are both connected to a third stone.

A liberty of a stone is an unoccupied intersection adjacent to that stone or to any stone connected to that stone.

Territory of a player (at the end of the game) consists of all points occupied by that player's stones plus all unoccupied points adjacent to that territory.

A play consists of placing a stone (of that player's own colour) on an unoccupied intersection, then removing any of the opponent's stones that then have no liberties (if any), and then removing any of that player's own stones that then have no liberties (if any).

A move consists of

making a play so that the resulting board position does not repeat the whole board position as it was after any of that player's previous moves or
saying 'pass'.
A game of go begins with an empty board, and the players take turns to move (beginning with black).

The game is finished when both players agree that there are no more worthwhile moves. 'Dead' stones may then be removed from the board by mutual agreement. If they cannot agree which stones are dead they must play on. If they cannot then agree who shall move next, all stones stay on the board (are alive) and are counted.

In an even game, 7 points (komi) are added to the white players territory.

In a handicap game, white passes the first n - 1 moves where n is the size of the handicap. There is no komi.

The winner is the player with the most points at the end of the game.

Notice that I ditch the recursive definitions for a path existence approach. I sure hope that part is unambiguous.

[Bantari]

I'm currently trying to state my preferred ruleset as compactly as possible.

Why?!?

[Mr. Mormon]

For fun. But a neat side effect is a demonstration that the rules can be written as simple (well, short) as they are often described as.

[Harleqin]

It is certainly a good idea to try to state your understanding of how the Go rules should be.

However, it is better to have five clear sentences than two incomprehensible ones.

[Mr. Mormon]

I'm trying to state them as short as possible unambiguously, even if not clearly. The rules are supposed to say:

Black starts the alternating turns.

A turn consists of quitting, passing, or placing a stone of one's color on an empty intersection.

When a stone is placed, any of the opponent's stones that are captured are removed, and then one's captured stones if any are removed. (suicide allowed)

A stone of one color is captured if there are no paths along the lines that connect that stone to an empty intersection without passing through a stone of the opposite color.

Don't recreate a position (when placing a stone) resulting after any of one's previous turns (even if they were passes). (situational superko)

If two passes happen in a row, either the players agree on stones to remove, if any, before area scoring plus komi of 7 for White if Black didn't have a (free) handicap, or resume normal play starting with the first passer in the two passes, who may not pass on that turn.

Area scoring says that the score is the sum of one's stones on the board and empty intersections with no paths to opponent stones without passing through one's stones.

Does Compact Modified New Zealand Ruleset 1.0 say all and only that?

[snorri]

It looks like a communication from aliens.

[snorri]

I'm currently trying to state my preferred ruleset:

NZ rules with a two-pass ending and the second-to-last passing player begins resumed play (not with a pass) after a dead stones dispute

as compactly as possible. This is attempt 1.0:

1. Black, White etc. quits, passes, or puts One's piece on an empty intersection, removing Other's without paths along the lines to empty spots through only Other's then for One's-avoid board states of One's past turns.
2. If One passes following a pass Other resumes 1 by no pass or agrees on pieces to remove before each sums One's, empty spots without paths to Other's not through One's, and 7 if White if Black had no first free turns.

It is assumed that equipment is already available and therefore needs no definition. Are all necessary inferences, while not necessarily easy, acceptable? Notably, I leave out jargon, who wins upon quitting or scoring, explain what a path is only once, omit 'pieces' after the first possessive, and use 'One' and 'Other' instead of 'one' and 'the other' (or 'the opponent'). I define komi-less handicap at the end.

What does "Black, White, etc." mean? Are green and red allowed, too? Does "quit" mean I win or lose or no result? Do Black and White alternate turns or somehow play simultaneously?

What's a line to empty spots?

"Avoid board states of One's past turns": Is that a strategy tip? What happens if I don't avoid it?

That's just line 1. I don't understand line 2 at all.

For comparison, here are a set of NZ rules translated through on online translation engine from English to Korean and back. These are still more comprehensible than your second sentence.


Moving in a series of (approximately) 180 different sets of white counter (approximately) 181 Black counters by using the two players, one, 19 X 19 grid and will be played on the board. These counters are referred to as a rock.

Intersections and intersections adjacent to the grid without any intervention, then the intersection of the line is connected.

They are connected Dolo adjacent to the intersection or the third case, the two stones the same color if you are connecting.

Freedom of stone to stone or an empty intersection adjacent doleule doleule is connected.

Players (at the end of the game), the region adjacent to the area that a player's stones and occupying all the empty spot is composed of all the points.

Play at the intersection of the empty stone (ie, the player's own color) consists of a batch, and then the freedom (if applicable) gaeopneun remove one of the opponent's stones and then there is the freedom that the players One of his removing the stone (if any).

Consists of moving
1. That's after the player's previous moves have happened due to the location on board to avoid repeating the position of the entire Board of Directors, or making plays
2. OR 'pass' said.

Of games and players start with a blank board (black to start with) to turn to move.

This game has two players agree to no more changes in the value you're done. 'Dead' stones, then by mutual agreement may be removed from the board. They can not agree that this stone dead if they should play. They can not agree who should move to the next, all the stones Board (live) is calculated perfectly.

Even in the game 7 points (Komi) is added to the area of ​​the white players.

n is the size of a failure to move the disabled in the game to pass the first n white. Komi is not anything eoga.

The winner is the player with the most points at the end of the game.

[EdLee]

For fun.

Also for fun, here's another approach (Post #26) -- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3995&start=20

[hyperpape]

I'm trying to state them as short as possible unambiguously, even if not clearly. The rules are supposed to say:

[list]When a stone is placed, any of the opponent's stones that are captured are removed, and then one's captured stones if any are removed. (suicide allowed)

A stone of one color is captured if there are no paths along the lines that connect that stone to an empty intersection without passing through a stone of the opposite color.

Since this is the go rules forum...

These clauses contain a problem. "One's captured stones" can be interpreted in multiple ways. It could either mean "stones which currently meet the criteria for being captured", or "stones which have at any point been captured" (I think the latter is slightly more natural).

$$B Corner
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . X @ X . . . .
$$ | . . O # O . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Corner
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . X @ X . . . .
$$ | . . O # O . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

According to that idiomatic understanding, both marked stones are considered captured. The white stone is removed first, then the black stone is removed second.

I doubt this would be a hard fix to make.

[Mr. Mormon]

@hyperpape

Every turn the capture rule is applied, so no captured stones from older turns would still be on the board and the ambiguity becomes moot.

@EdLee

lol

@snorri

The equipment is already provided, but I guess "Black, White etc." can hint at a multicolor variant, which is fine.

I'm trying to correctly abuse implications like crazy. Quitting cannot be a win because the rules would never be relevant (as the game would never be played beyond the first turn), nor can it be a draw because no one could force a win. The statements from 2. that one can pass following a pass and that one player resumes 1. imply alternating turns. I didn't notice the garden path-ness of "paths along the lines to empty spots", but I suppose as long as your second interpretation is obviously undefined, the first should rationally be taken? I don't think strategy tips can by definition belong in a "ruleset", but is that debatable?

What's wrong with 2.? Is there another interpretation besides "If One passes following a pass (a) Other resumes [the phase described by rule] 1 by no pass or (b) agrees on pieces to remove before each sums (i) One's, (ii) empty spots without paths to Other's not through One's, and (iii) 7 (if White [if Black had no first free turns])."?

[emeraldemon]

I still like this the best:

http://homepages.cwi.nl/~tromp/go.html

Succinct, readable, and unambiguous.

[Mr. Mormon]

Longer.

[snorri]

@snorri

The equipment is already provided, but I guess "Black, White etc." can hint at a multicolor variant, which is fine.

I don't think that you can admit multicolor go without adding more rules, so the phrasing should be more restrictive.

I'm trying to correctly abuse implications like crazy.

I'm not sure how one can distinguish correct abuse from incorrect abuse. Anyway, what you can assume depends on the audience. If you are doing it for fun, maybe the audience is yourself, in which can everything can be left out, but of course that's not interesting. If the audience is beginners, then there more needs to be included.

Quitting cannot be a win because the rules would never be relevant (as the game would never be played beyond the first turn), nor can it be a draw because no one could force a win.

Okay, I was being glib. But I think "resign" is better than "quit." Resign implies a concession of loss, whereas if you say "quit" that sounds more like escaping.

The statements from 2. that one can pass following a pass and that one player resumes 1. imply alternating turns.

No, it implies 1 alternation during the pass phase. One cannot automatically conclude that play before passing alternates. I suppose you can suggest that that's obvious.

I don't think strategy tips can by definition belong in a "ruleset", but is that debatable?

Strategy tips don't belong in a rulset. So you shouldn't say avoid, because avoiding something sounds optional. So you should say that the repetition is illegal, prohibited, or something like that. "Game state" is pretty vague in your modified rules.

What's wrong with 2.?

It parses poorly.