Life In 19x19

No.

palapiku wrote:No.

You convinced me.

palapiku wrote: Superko would solve this, but most servers don't have superko and implementing it would be a serious change.

Is this true? I'll admit I primarily play on KGS and Dragon which both have Chinese rules as an option (though I've never actually seen a Chinese ruleset game on DGS), but I would think Chinese servers at least would have superko.

It is true that suicide can have practical value as a ko threat. However, is that really a reason to overturn years of tradition? Given the limited tactical value afforded by the allowance of suicide, I'd have to vote against its inclusion.

Javaness2 wrote:It is true that suicide can have practical value as a ko threat. However, is that really a reason to overturn years of tradition? Given the limited tactical value afforded by the allowance of suicide, I'd have to vote against its inclusion.

To me, it seems inconsistant to have an additional rule making it illegal.

The rules allow you to play in a place where the stone, or stones would have no liberties if such a play kills the surrounding stones. This concept has to be understood already.

How is playing a stone where it kills itself different? Other than usually being stupid...but when it is not, why not.

Note that simply playing a single stone into a single suicide (really stupid) is already forbidden by the rule against repeating board positions.

Horibe wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:It is true that suicide can have practical value as a ko threat. However, is that really a reason to overturn years of tradition? Given the limited tactical value afforded by the allowance of suicide, I'd have to vote against its inclusion.

To me, it seems inconsistant to have an additional rule making it illegal.

The rules allow you to play in a place where the stone, or stones would have no liberties if such a play kills the surrounding stones. This concept has to be understood already.

How is playing a stone where it kills itself different? Other than usually being stupid...but when it is not, why not.

Note that simply playing a single stone into a single suicide (really stupid) is already forbidden by the rule against repeating board positions.

As pointed out before, suicide actually requires an additional rule, which is that when placing a stone you first remove stones of opposite color with no liberties, and then stones of your own color with no liberties.

Regular go does not have that rule.

Horibe wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:It is true that suicide can have practical value as a ko threat. However, is that really a reason to overturn years of tradition? Given the limited tactical value afforded by the allowance of suicide, I'd have to vote against its inclusion.

To me, it seems inconsistant to have an additional rule making it illegal.

The rules allow you to play in a place where the stone, or stones would have no liberties if such a play kills the surrounding stones. This concept has to be understood already.

How is playing a stone where it kills itself different? Other than usually being stupid...but when it is not, why not.

Note that simply playing a single stone into a single suicide (really stupid) is already forbidden by the rule against repeating board positions.

I don't understand your point. The rule you're using appears to forbid suicide...

palapiku wrote:suicide actually requires an additional rule,

Suicide requires an additional rule or definition or extension of a definition.

Prohibited suicide requires an additional rule or definition or extension of a definition.

Regular go does not have that rule.

What is "regular" go in contrast to "irregular go" WRT to (no) suicide?

RobertJasiek wrote: What is "regular" go in contrast to "irregular go" WRT to (no) suicide?

The tradition of go up until NZ Rules were invented?

I don't think suicide makes any difference anyway. Out of interest, did any professional game under Ing Rules ever experience suicide? I have a vague recollection of seeing it on KGS once...

Javaness2 wrote:The tradition of go up until NZ Rules were invented?

I see. (Maybe Ing Rules suicide was earlier?) But do we really know what the tradition was? Probably we know it for Japan. I am not so sure about China in earlier centuries.

Out of interest, did any professional game under Ing Rules ever experience suicide?

Probably yes, but it is infrequent indeed.

It's interesting because under "pass stone" rules, it is pretty much legal. You place a stone in an opponent's eye, it gets captured - you give them your stone and give up your turn. Same thing, essentially. Passing is playing a dead stone.

I like the "no-suicide" rule, because it's another parameter which makes the game more challenging and interesting. Of course, for the most part, you wouldn't suicide anyway, so it's a superfluous rule. Sometimes you can suicide as a ko threat. But it seems almost like a cop-out move, really. I don't like the idea that you can kill yourself and reset the board - or parts of it. I like how the board always changes. And I think that's part of the point of the ko rule, as well as this one.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:The tradition of go up until NZ Rules were invented?

I see. (Maybe Ing Rules suicide was earlier?) But do we really know what the tradition was? Probably we know it for Japan. I am not so sure about China in earlier centuries.

Out of interest, did any professional game under Ing Rules ever experience suicide?

Probably yes, but it is infrequent indeed.

You know about traditional chinese fuseki rules?

You know how go was traditionally played on 17x17?

I like to think we move on from tradition as we see what works and what doesn't. In all areas of life - not just go.

Annihilist wrote:It's interesting because under "pass stone" rules, it is pretty much legal. You place a stone in an opponent's eye, it gets captured - you give them your stone and give up your turn. Same thing, essentially. Passing is playing a dead stone.

I like the "no-suicide" rule, because it's another parameter which makes the game more challenging and interesting. Of course, for the most part, you wouldn't suicide anyway, so it's a superfluous rule. Sometimes you can suicide as a ko threat. But it seems almost like a cop-out move, really. I don't like the idea that you can kill yourself and reset the board - or parts of it. I like how the board always changes. And I think that's part of the point of the ko rule, as well as this one.

That's a really interesting connection. But on the other hand, pass stones are a weird feature of the game. Although I now understand them (I think), every previous tournament I went to, there's this discussion before the first game: "isn't there something about White or Black playing last? Passing stones?" "Yeah, I think it's like this...but I don't know why".

hyperpape wrote:

Annihilist wrote:It's interesting because under "pass stone" rules, it is pretty much legal. You place a stone in an opponent's eye, it gets captured - you give them your stone and give up your turn. Same thing, essentially. Passing is playing a dead stone.
...

That's a really interesting connection. But on the other hand, pass stones are a weird feature of the game. Although I now understand them (I think), every previous tournament I went to, there's this discussion before the first game: "isn't there something about White or Black playing last? Passing stones?" "Yeah, I think it's like this...but I don't know why".

Pass stone and suicide are different if you suicide into your existing group (say, place a stone so that three of your stones get captured).

My (beginner) understanding is that a Pass Stone is so that area scoring and territory scoring have the same result (difference between black and white, not absolute values). For this to work, there must be the same number of moves from black and white. (Sensei's Library Equivalence Scoring). I usually frame this simply as "white pass after black". If black passes first, then white, then passing stones are superfluous. If the pass sequence is white, black, white, then white scores one extra point if no pass stones are used.

I haven't thought through the exact implications when handicap stones are used, komi is reducted and white goes first.

Sorry if everyone already knew this

Edit: "Pass stone and suicide are different"

Annihilist wrote:It's interesting because under "pass stone" rules, it is pretty much legal. You place a stone in an opponent's eye, it gets captured - you give them your stone and give up your turn. Same thing, essentially. Passing is playing a dead stone.

I like the "no-suicide" rule, because it's another parameter which makes the game more challenging and interesting. Of course, for the most part, you wouldn't suicide anyway, so it's a superfluous rule. Sometimes you can suicide as a ko threat. But it seems almost like a cop-out move, really. I don't like the idea that you can kill yourself and reset the board - or parts of it. I like how the board always changes. And I think that's part of the point of the ko rule, as well as this one.

Well, I really do not agree with anything in this post.

First - "pass stone" rules do not make suicide legal. The AGA rules have the pass stone, but explicitly state that suicide is not allowed. If you played your pass stone as you suggest, under AGA rules you would suffer the penalty for an illegal move, as if you had retaken a ko without a threat. What you mean to say is the result is the same, but that same result could only occur when all the dame are filled, no sooner. I urge players with white who are compelled to make that dreaded first pass - do not hand over as stone, do not play an illegal move - just defend something, even if you do not think black and do anything. I have killed stuff after recieving a pass stone before.... You must pass to end the game, not play a stone with the same scoring impact...you must pass, or the game is not over.

Second - if you kill yourself by resulting in more than one stone dying - then you have not reset the board - the board position has changed, one or more of your stones are gone.

Finally - I do not see how disallowing suicide makes the game less interesting or challenging. Use of suicide moves would be another weopon, another challenge (admittedly a rare one) to master.