Life In 19x19

nagano wrote:Flaws are situations that cause the game to terminate prematurely, or, in the case of Chess, which cause an imbalance between piece types.

The problem here again, is that this is all your opinion. For example, are all players going to agree what ending prematurely means? If player A is a genius who figures out how to beat player B on the 15th move, is that premature? What about a draw after the 100th move? As for the imbalance between piece types, that is part of the basic point in the game.

Essentially, you have decided that anything you don't enjoy about a specific game is a flaw. The problem is that others don't see those things as flaws, but as features or even strengths in the game.

You mean the rules don't lead to things you consider to be flaws. To someone who loves checkers, Go might appeared flawed.

But flaws are functional issues with the game.

Ok, but define functional issues that are flaws as opposed to those which are not? I could argue that the need for komi in Go is a functional issue; while it at least approaches making the game balanced, it has the feeling of a patch over a flaw, rather than a truly elegant solution. Your argument in support of flaws comes down to, if I don't like it, it is a flaw.

Now, I am not saying you are wrong to have your preference. We all do, but there are many, many dedicated chess, shogi, xianqi, etc. players who might argue that we are wrong to like a game where victory is determined by counting at the end of the game.

Well, blocked positions are usually the result of too small a board or poor piece design.

I am not sure I buy that. Go after all, does need special rules to resolve some Ko issues after all and in practical terms, Go has the largest board of traditional abstract strategy games (at least that I know of!).

The universe actually appears to get simpler the smaller the scale; but many simple systems interacting can lead to an appearance of great complexity. Really the only reason anything seems complex is because our brains cannot hold it all.

I am not sure I agree with things getting less complex at smaller scales. The quantum world present us with a weird array of sub atomic particles, most of which can only be detected with the aid of a super collider, and if string theory is right, they may exist as 11 dimensional objects. The fact really understanding any of it requires advanced math that most people never learn.

Yes, but just because we are too dumb, does not mean it is not simple.

It doesn't mean it is simple either.

--
Bill

Regardless of the discussion, it's intereting to see the poll coming out roughly even. That suggests that for L19 readers, it wouldn't matter either way. There's be just as many people against or indifferent if it were the other way around. Talk about inertia ...

i am getting an impression this discussion is not very meaningful anymore. nagano is probably right from his perspective of seeking a perfect game with ultimately simple rules while others don't really need to care because it will make no or only slight difference in their games, so they can happily stick with traditionally disallowed suicide and i will be one of them

by the way, it feels somehow natural that you don't kill your own stones, but it is only matter of taste and quite pointless for the discussion

Whether allowing suicide is simplifying or not seems to depend on what your ruleset describes a move as and how capture works.

Under NZ rules for example, stopping suicide would require adding a new rule specifically to remove a certain kind of ko threat.

hyperpape wrote:@Nagano What I said holds just as true for informal logic as formal. Informal Logic studies fallacies and examples of proper reasoning. It says nothing about whether everyone must want to live. It does not forbid suicide any more than math does.

Similarly, even if John F's respect for tradition is the dumbest thing in the world, logic does not forbid it.

Perhaps I need to clarify what my view of logic is. I think there are basically two types. The first is theoretical, and asks first what the facts are, and then seeks to combine them so as to determine the underlying reality. I believe this is the type most of you are referring to. The second is functional, concerned with finding the best solution to a given situation based upon the desired goal. Note that this goal is by necessity arbitrary. (Though that does not mean entirely devoid of reason.) This is the type of reasoning I am using here. I am not saying that you must agree with the goal, but if that is the starting point, the following steps are logical in the context of the goal. I will be the first to admit that they are meaningless outside of this context.

MarylandBill wrote:

nagano wrote:Flaws are situations that cause the game to terminate prematurely, or, in the case of Chess, which cause an imbalance between piece types.

The problem here again, is that this is all your opinion. For example, are all players going to agree what ending prematurely means? If player A is a genius who figures out how to beat player B on the 15th move, is that premature? What about a draw after the 100th move? As for the imbalance between piece types, that is part of the basic point in the game.

Premature means the game is void, with no win or draw. It does not matter when the game ends, so long as it has a conclusion.

Essentially, you have decided that anything you don't enjoy about a specific game is a flaw. The problem is that others don't see those things as flaws, but as features or even strengths in the game.

Actually, it has nothing to do with whether I enjoy a rule or not. There are rules that I enjoy in games that I will readily admit are flawed when judged in the aforementioned context.

You mean the rules don't lead to things you consider to be flaws. To someone who loves checkers, Go might appeared flawed.

But flaws are functional issues with the game.

Ok, but define functional issues that are flaws as opposed to those which are not? I could argue that the need for komi in Go is a functional issue; while it at least approaches making the game balanced, it has the feeling of a patch over a flaw, rather than a truly elegant solution. Your argument in support of flaws comes down to, if I don't like it, it is a flaw.

Wrong. If a game reaches a position where it cannot end in a draw or win for either player, it is flawed.

Well, blocked positions are usually the result of too small a board or poor piece design.

I am not sure I buy that. Go after all, does need special rules to resolve some Ko issues after all and in practical terms, Go has the largest board of traditional abstract strategy games (at least that I know of!).

I am referring to movement based games here. Xiangqi does not have the blockage issues that Chess does. The reason is primarily the piece density.

I am not sure I agree with things getting less complex at smaller scales. The quantum world present us with a weird array of sub atomic particles, most of which can only be detected with the aid of a super collider, and if string theory is right, they may exist as 11 dimensional objects. The fact really understanding any of it requires advanced math that most people never learn.

Yes, but just because we are too dumb, does not mean it is not simple.

It doesn't mean it is simple either.

Complexity is ultimately a delusion of the human mind.

I think that we have carried this discussion as far as it can go, and the thread is now appropriately titled.

Nagano, then you should never say that "x is logical" except where there is a known agreement concerning goals. That's really the meat of my complaint.

You're walking into a room of people who do not necessarily share your goals for what is a good game. Then you're announcing "given my goals, these are the logical rules of go". Except you're leaving out the part about goals. And that turns what you're saying from a reasonable and defensible claim that can be debated into something different--at the minimum it disguises what you're actually claiming.

I think this pretty much sums up my point of view. I don't see the need to continue the thread unless you feel the need to, or throw out some totally new points in response.

hyperpape wrote:Nagano, then you should never say that "x is logical" except where there is a known agreement concerning goals. That's really the meat of my complaint.

You're walking into a room of people who do not necessarily share your goals for what is a good game. Then you're announcing "given my goals, these are the logical rules of go". Except you're leaving out the part about goals. And that turns what you're saying from a reasonable and defensible claim that can be debated into something different--at the minimum it disguises what you're actually claiming.

I think this pretty much sums up my point of view. I don't see the need to continue the thread unless you feel the need to, or throw out some totally new points in response.

I think this is just a misunderstanding. If you will note my previous post, I basically said the same thing you just did. That is why I stressed the context so much. My initial mistake was assuming that people had some idea of what I was basing my arguments on from my posts in other threads. I don't know where I got that idea.

nagano wrote:

Premature means the game is void, with no win or draw. It does not matter when the game ends, so long as it has a conclusion.

Ok, I know checkers and chess have to end in a win and a draw. There is no position on board, where the game cannot advance to one of those conclusions. So other than your insistence on a single piece type, they must not be flawed then.

Wrong. If a game reaches a position where it cannot end in a draw or win for either player, it is flawed.

Well, then can't that be resolved with tweaking the rules where such a situation is considered either a draw or a win for one player? In chess a stalemate is a draw, while the same situation in xianqi is a win for the player putting the other player in stalemate. Either situation though is a situation where one player has no legal move (i.e., a blockage).

I am referring to movement based games here. Xiangqi does not have the blockage issues that Chess does. The reason is primarily the piece density.

Again, I don't see a blockage difficulty in chess. Most draws in chess occur when most of the pieces have been removed from play. Yes, it allows much tougher defenses than Xianqi does, but that is why they are different games.

--
Bill

MarylandBill wrote:

nagano wrote:Premature means the game is void, with no win or draw. It does not matter when the game ends, so long as it has a conclusion.

Ok, I know checkers and chess have to end in a win and a draw. There is no position on board, where the game cannot advance to one of those conclusions. So other than your insistence on a single piece type, they must not be flawed then.

Well, there is one other consideration. It is very likely that not all movement based games end in draw. This issue is quite difficult to fix without altering the very nature of the game.

Wrong. If a game reaches a position where it cannot end in a draw or win for either player, it is flawed.

Well, then can't that be resolved with tweaking the rules where such a situation is considered either a draw or a win for one player? In chess a stalemate is a draw, while the same situation in xianqi is a win for the player putting the other player in stalemate. Either situation though is a situation where one player has no legal move (i.e., a blockage).

Yes, but it is again very hard to fix fairly. The only rule I'm aware of in a Chess type game is in Janggi (장기), where each piece type is given a specific numeric value, and if the players agree to a "draw" the winner is the side whose remaining pieces add up to more points.

I am referring to movement based games here. Xiangqi does not have the blockage issues that Chess does. The reason is primarily the piece density.

Again, I don't see a blockage difficulty in chess. Most draws in chess occur when most of the pieces have been removed from play. Yes, it allows much tougher defenses than Xianqi does, but that is why they are different games.

I think it is much more common among top professionals.

nagano wrote:The only rule I'm aware of in a Chess type game is in Janggi (장기), where each piece type is given a specific numeric value, and if the players agree to a "draw" the winner is the side whose remaining pieces add up to more points.

Shogi has a similar rule in rare situations, as far as I'm aware - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogi#Chec ... g_the_game (the section about jishōgi). (I can't give you any further detail though, having never played shogi, but I'm sure other forum members - John Fairbairn in particular - could give some.)

robinz wrote:

nagano wrote:The only rule I'm aware of in a Chess type game is in Janggi (장기), where each piece type is given a specific numeric value, and if the players agree to a "draw" the winner is the side whose remaining pieces add up to more points.

Shogi has a similar rule in rare situations, as far as I'm aware - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogi#Chec ... g_the_game (the section about jishōgi). (I can't give you any further detail though, having never played shogi, but I'm sure other forum members - John Fairbairn in particular - could give some.)

Right! I forgot to mention that one.