What's wrong with suicide?

[cdybeijing]

Folks, seriously, what we really need is a rule that prevents me from playing self-atari. Isn't that called suicide?

[willemien]

Folks, seriously, what we really need is a rule that prevents me from playing self-atari. Isn't that called suicide?

no Suicide and self-atari are completely different situations

Suicide is having NO liberties (and your stones need to be removed / the move is illegal)

Self atari is having only ONE liberty left, your stones stay on the board but your opponent CAN capture your stones ON HIS NEXT MOVE. (but this is nt an obligation

Here i need even make an exemption for ko situations where the opponent is not allowed to recapture the stone but the stone just played is in atari and can be called a self atari.

If you want to forbid self atari you are talking about something similar to atari go. http://senseis.xmp.net/?AtariGo athough there it is not forbidden but your opponent will win after capturing you (what is not legaly the same but in practice it makes no difference)

[Phelan]

willemien, please re-tune your joke detector. :p

[RobertJasiek]

All, the Japanese no result rule does not always define an outcome:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html

Harleqin, a carefully written ruleset of rules of play can consist of one of the following:
- axioms and definitions (e.g. Japanese 2003 Rules)
- definitions
- rules
- axioms and rules
- axioms and definitions and rules
- definitions and rules
Note that rules are just carelessly circumvented definitions. Rules written down carefully can be reduced to definitions, which in turn rely on axioms.

Cassandra, where can we read the Japanese 1996 Rules? Is it available in English? How does not differ from the 1989 Rules? Is the 1996 version the latest?

[Cassandra]

Cassandra, where can we read the Japanese 1996 Rules? Is it available in English? How does not differ from the 1989 Rules? Is the 1996 version the latest?

What kind of ruleset do you have in mind ?

The latest Nihon Kiin rules date from 1989.

[xed_over]

Cassandra, where can we read the Japanese 1996 Rules? Is it available in English? How does not differ from the 1989 Rules? Is the 1996 version the latest?

What kind of ruleset do you have in mind ?

The latest Nihon Kiin rules date from 1989.

from your post #32

Let's have a look at the Japanese Rules, which do not mention "suicide" at all.

Article 5 (capture) of the 1996 ruleset claims

maybe the date was a typo?

[oren]

All, the Japanese no result rule does not always define an outcome:

"No result" is an outcome. I'm not sure I follow the logic here, so it might help to explain.

[RobertJasiek]

1) Under the Japanese 1989 Rules ("if the players agree"), the players are not required to agree on a "no result" but could continue forever. Then the outcome is undefined.

2) The result "no result" is uncomparable to number scores. Therefore in shapes like one play before either triple ko or double ko seki it is undecidable for the moving player whether creating a triple ko with the outcome "no result" or a double ko seki with a particular number score (like, e.g., zero for a tie in a no komi game) is better. The player cannot meaningfully decide his strategy while this is not his fault. Therefore, at such a moment of the game, there is no meaningful, unambiguous outcome. Instead the game should halt, the rules be corrected and the players should start a replacement game. Also see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/mistakes.html

[oren]

1) If the players agree that you have reached one of the conditions that make up a no result, then it is a no result. The cases are basic, so it seems a clear rule.

2) No results are not uncommon in other games and sports. A baseball game that has to end early due to weather is a no result and rescheduled. I prefer the no result to superko, but that is simply opinion. This opinion is one that Nihon Kiin has kept and some others do not.

[palapiku]

"No result" is an outcome. I'm not sure I follow the logic here, so it might help to explain.

Mathematically speaking, "no result" is equivalent to the game going on forever (compare with the bottom type in computer science). What would happen if the game were actually to go on forever? No result.

[oren]

Mathematically speaking, "no result" is equivalent to the game going on forever (compare with the bottom type in computer science). What would happen if the game were actually to go on forever? No result.

Luckily, it's not math.

[palapiku]

Luckily, it's not math.

It's not?

[Cassandra]

from your post #32

Let's have a look at the Japanese Rules, which do not mention "suicide" at all.
Article 5 (capture) of the 1996 ruleset claims

maybe the date was a typo?

Oh, yes, of course.

Sorry.

[RobertJasiek]

oren, IF(!) the players agree, then the outcome (but not its relative meaning to an outcome with a score) is clear. If the players do NOT agree, then there is not even an outcome.

The rule is NOT clear for in particular the two reasons I have stated earlier. (More reasons you can find on my webpage.)

It would be rather easy to replace the rule by something clear. Since the Japanese 1989 Rules does NOT replace its "no result" rule by something clear, it remains unclear though.

As I suggest on
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html
the rule could be replaced by the following clear text:

"
§12 Long cycle

A "position" is the distribution of black or white stones on the board's specific intersections. Recreation of the position after three or more board-plays ends the alternation prematurely with an exceptional result. The result depends on the numbers of black and white stones that have been removed from the board since first leaving the position and until including recreating the position:

* If equally many black and white stones have been removed, then the default result is called "no result", which, only for the purpose of the players' strategic planning, is supposed to equal a tie.
* If fewer black than white stones have been removed, then the result is a win for Black.
* If fewer white than black stones have been removed, then the result is a win for White.

This rule applies only until the first game stop or in between a resumption and the next game stop following the resumption. After a resumption, recreation compares only those positions since the last resumption.
"

This clarifies the rule at least for rules of play in the context of the intention of the Japanese 1989 Rules. In a tournament and given the tournament system and prizes, a player still has to consider which of "no result" or tie is better and the decision might have to rely on mutually conflicting aims.

[Cassandra]

The usual translation "no result" is a bit misleading.

The term used in the Japanese Rules is 無勝負 and means "no victory nor defeat".