Life In 19x19

Alguien wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Alguien wrote:there has to be a very strong reason to create or maintain any rule.

The reason is: to complete the definition of 'play'. The definition can be made complete by specifying what happens in case of one's own stones still without liberties after any removals of opposing stones. Specifying what happens in this case can be made by a) allowing suicide or b) prohibiting suicide.

"What happens to a group without liberties" is already specified. It's kind of the second rule of go, after "play in turns and don't move stones around".

How do you teach the classic one stone kill without saying "a group without liberties dies"?

So if I play here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . O X 1 X .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

I then remove all groups without liberties and end up with this?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . O . . X .
$$ . . O X . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

If you don't want that, you have to add a rule to specify the order. E.g. New Zealand rules specify that you first remove opposing stones without liberties, then remove your own stones without liberties.

Japanese say: Remove opposing stones without liberties, then if any of your stones have no liberties, the move is illegal.

Either way, you have to add a rule on top of "remove opposing stones without liberties" (well actually you don't, of course, but then you get DelayedSuicide or, if you do want the above to happen, you get MutualCapture)

HermanHiddema wrote:E.g. New Zealand rules specify that you first remove opposing stones without liberties, then remove your own stones without liberties.

Ok. In my head I've always understood it as New Zealand rules and that's how I've taught it.

I think the origin of it being intuitive, or natural, to me is that I think of stone removal a "YOU, remove the stones". i.e.: You play in your turn and remove white stones with no liberties and then, in his turn, white removes yours. Thus, establishing a natural priority.

It's never come up in a game I've played or witnessed so I guess I simply don't care enough. Maybe once I've reached a level where I can actually plan a game to win by half a point, I'll care more.

Alguien wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:E.g. New Zealand rules specify that you first remove opposing stones without liberties, then remove your own stones without liberties.

Ok. In my head I've always understood it as New Zealand rules and that's how I've taught it.

I think the origin of it being intuitive, or natural, to me is that I think of stone removal a "YOU, remove the stones". i.e.: You play in your turn and remove white stones with no liberties and then, in his turn, white removes yours. Thus, establishing a natural priority.

It's never come up in a game I've played or witnessed so I guess I simply don't care enough. Maybe once I've reached a level where I can actually plan a game to win by half a point, I'll care more.

Probably it has, but you never noticed

E.g. life by OshiTsubushi isn't very rare, it happens regularly. And, of course, you may have played ot witnessed games where it was possible to create oshi-tsubushi but a player didn't, because it had no extra value due to suicide being illegal anyway.

And, of course, there are other common situations where it makes a difference.

E.g:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ a is a ko threat for white if suicide is allowed.
$$ -----------------------
$$ . . . X a O X . X O . .
$$ . . O O X X X X X O . .
$$ . . . . O O O O O O . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Alguien wrote:a natural priority

Why should a priori the priority "remove opposing then own" be more natural than "remove own then opposing"?

If you want suicide because it is more logical and less arbitrary, then you also have to allow single-stone suicide.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ white to play
$$
$$ .X.
$$ XaX
$$ .X.[/go]

...and come on, that's just silly.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Alguien wrote:a natural priority

Why should a priori the priority "remove opposing then own" be more natural than "remove own then opposing"?

The (active) placed stone acts upon the (passive) stone it is placed next to, reducing the enemy stone's liberties to zero, thereby capturing it.

A player being taught the rules might think of mutual capture as a possibility (I think that's happened to me while teaching), but while I can't prove it, I strongly believe that no player would think that only the placed stone is captured, leaving the enemy stone on the board.

So far as axiomatized rules go, either alternative is equally sensible. So far as human psychology goes, only one is a live possibility.

palapiku wrote:If you want suicide because it is more logical and less arbitrary, then you also have to allow single-stone suicide.

$$ white to play
$$
$$ .X.
$$ XaX
$$ .X.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ white to play
$$
$$ .X.
$$ XaX
$$ .X.[/go]

...and come on, that's just silly.

So is doing this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B herp derp hurr durr
$$------
$$|. X 1 X O .
$$|X X X X O .
$$|O O O O O .
$$|. . . . . .[/go]

But the rules of go should not forbid stupid or pointless moves.

Besides, single stone suicide is exactly equivalent to rules where you hand over a stone for passing.

TheBigH wrote:single stone suicide is exactly equivalent to rules where you hand over a stone for passing.

Passing gives you an opportunity to pass in return, ending the game.

Standard go rules have a nice property that if your opponent is trolling - not interested in playing but just making silly moves - then you can make all your groups unconditionally alive and then just keep passing, and eventually your opponent will run out of valid moves. With suicide, they can keep on making dumb moves forever. It would give every angry little kid an easy way to try to drive you out of a won game through sheer annoyance. Superko would solve this, but most servers don't have superko and implementing it would be a serious change.

palapiku wrote:then you also have to allow single-stone suicide.

No. (Hint: there are also the ko rules.)

hyperpape wrote:So far as human psychology goes, only one is a live possibility.

Ok, but this is about human psychology and not about what is natural on the board.

palapiku wrote:With suicide, they can keep on making dumb moves forever. It would give every angry little kid an easy way to try to drive you out of a won game through sheer annoyance. Superko would solve this, but most servers don't have superko and implementing it would be a serious change.

I'm not sure about forever, as players only have a max of 181 stones to begin with.

MS_Sydney wrote:as players only have a max of 181 stones to begin with.

No.

EdLee wrote:

MS_Sydney wrote:as players only have a max of 181 stones to begin with.

No.

Practical question, then. How, in the real world, does one proceed with the game when one has used all of one's actual stones?

MS_Sydney wrote:How, in the real world, does one proceed with the game when one has used all of one's actual stones?

(a) Have enough extra stones to minimize this happening
(b) Re-cycle captured stones
(c) Borrow from the next table

In the past 10 years, with (a), I only had to use (b) or (c) less than 10 times.
With (a), (b), and (c), I've never run out of stones in my games, and I've never seen
anybody else (including all casual games and tournaments) either, not even once ever (the past 10 years).

EdLee wrote:

MS_Sydney wrote:How, in the real world, does one proceed with the game when one has used all of one's actual stones?

(a) Have enough extra stones to minimize this happening
(b) Re-cycle captured stones
(c) Borrow from the next table

In the past 10 years, with (a), I only had to use (b) or (c) less than 10 times.
With (a), (b), and (c), I've never run out of stones in my games, and I've never seen
anybody else (including all casual games and tournaments) either, not even once ever (the past 10 years).

A somewhat more satisfying response than "No."