Unclarity of AGA rules

[tiger314]

(partly a reaction to viewtopic.php?f=45&t=10634)

Since the AGA rules were written outside of the eastern Go tradition, one would expect them to be usable without any prior knowledge of the game, by just applying what is written in them. But I found a few points which are either unclear or hard to understand. Is it just me or are these really missing in the rulebook?

• An explicit statement that pass stones become prisoners
• A definition of both players passing twice in succession (I think I have heard at least 3 different interpretations)
• An explicit statement that rule 11 applies only after the removal of dead stones
• The procedure for dispute is poorly described in general: e.g. Does the agreeing about life and death happen during resumed alternation or after another pair of successive passes?

Don't get me wrong, I like the AGA rules very much. But aren't they due for a slight rewording, or at least an authoritative commentary to clear these points up? I know that many (all?) of those points can be deduced, but aren't rules supposed to be clear and unambiguous?

[RobertJasiek]

There is ambiguity in the wording and another example is the superko rule. I wish the rules would not mention "life" and "death" at all.

[wineandgolover]

Perhaps you could post alternative language here, get feedback, then submit it to the AGA board for consideration at the next Congress.

[mhlepore]

• An explicit statement that pass stones become prisoners
• A definition of both players passing twice in succession (I think I have heard at least 3 different interpretations)
• An explicit statement that rule 11 applies only after the removal of dead stones
• The procedure for dispute is poorly described in general: e.g. Does the agreeing about life and death happen during resumed alternation or after another pair of successive passes?

I highlighted the item that got my attention. When you refer to rule 11, are you talking about rule 11 from http://www.usgo.org/files/pdf/conciserules.pdf?

(11) The Last move: White must make the last move - if necessary, an additional pass, with a stone passed to the opponent as usual. The total number of stones played or passed by the two players during the entire game must be equal.

Are you saying the rules dictate that when the dame are filled and white passes first, black then passes, then the dead stones are removed, then white passes again? If so, I think 99.99% of all AGA games are played wrong.

[skydyr]

• An explicit statement that pass stones become prisoners
• A definition of both players passing twice in succession (I think I have heard at least 3 different interpretations)
• An explicit statement that rule 11 applies only after the removal of dead stones
• The procedure for dispute is poorly described in general: e.g. Does the agreeing about life and death happen during resumed alternation or after another pair of successive passes?

I highlighted the item that got my attention. When you refer to rule 11, are you talking about rule 11 from http://www.usgo.org/files/pdf/conciserules.pdf?

(11) The Last move: White must make the last move - if necessary, an additional pass, with a stone passed to the opponent as usual. The total number of stones played or passed by the two players during the entire game must be equal.

Are you saying the rules dictate that when the dame are filled and white passes first, black then passes, then the dead stones are removed, then white passes again? If so, I think 99.99% of all AGA games are played wrong.

By the rules as written, this interpretation is correct. If there is a dispute requiring play to continue, the result of the first pass sequence should be null. Play should resume with the first person to pass, or there could conceivably be an advantage for black. In addition, if white passes first the first time, gives a second pass stone, and there is a long and complicated determination phase, white may end up passing first again and need to give up yet another stone, which may affect the results.

[Bill Spight]

An explicit statement that pass stones become prisoners

Rule 7 could be amended to say that. Players who are used to Chinese scoring might not understand why stones are passed, only to be returned later.

A definition of both players passing twice in succession (I think I have heard at least 3 different interpretations)

This could be spelled out more clearly. However, it is plain that it does not mean two consecutive passes. What's left?

An explicit statement that rule 11 applies only after the removal of dead stones

That is not so. No such procedure is specified. Rule 11 applies at the end of play. It does not matter whether dead stones are removed before or after White's final pass.

The procedure for dispute is poorly described in general: e.g. Does the agreeing about life and death happen during resumed alternation or after another pair of successive passes?

Agreement about life and death occurs according to rule 9, i. e., after two consecutive passes. Rule 10 says nothing about when agreement happens, only that the game ends when the players agree.

That said, the procedure to handle disputes is not clearly described.

[Bill Spight]

In addition, if white passes first the first time, gives a second pass stone, and there is a long and complicated determination phase, white may end up passing first again and need to give up yet another stone, which may affect the results.

Suppose that by some confusion play stops after three consecutive passes, the first and third by White. Then the players disagree about the status of some stones on the board. Play resumes with Black to play. If the game should perchance end with White having to make another third pass, the number of White and Black stones played or passed will still be the same. The results will not be affected.

Edit: The results may be affected by Black resuming play instead of White, but that is White's fault.

Suppose that because of further confusion, White in the above case resumed play instead of Black, and ended up with an extra stone on the board. If I were the TD and were called to the board, I would simply remove the extra stone. However, there is an argument that White screwed himself and deserves the loss of a point. But rule 11 does not allow that. The number of stones played or passed must be equal.