Life In 19x19

so yeah i need to apologise up front: yet another "suicide in go" take.
my own thoughts are these. the super ko rule: "no previously existing board state may be repeated" should be suffient for handling suicide. for example: suicide of a single stone would always be illeagal because it violates this rule. still, you would need an additional rule to expictly state who removes the suicided stones. it should be the player who commits it. unruly? hard to say. suicide is such a rare advantagious play that i think we can leave allowing it out. still...

You're assuming that people want to have a superko rule instead though.

"Don't cycle" is such a simple, straightforward rule. It's what I tell people instead of the mess of ko rules.

Allowing suicides, although it doesn't matter in a huge way, would add to the simplicity of the rules. The use of suicidal ko threats has a cost, and the instances in which suicide can save a group seem very rare to me. In the mean time, I don't actually expect that rule to go anywhere, though. Everyone I play with seems fond of Japanese rules.

Tsuyoku wrote:Allowing suicides, although it doesn't matter in a huge way, would add to the simplicity of the rules. The use of suicidal ko threats has a cost, and the instances in which suicide can save a group seem very rare to me. In the mean time, I don't actually expect that rule to go anywhere, though. Everyone I play with seems fond of Japanese rules.

If not allowing suicide can cause a player to lose a game he rightfully should have won, then it matters. Glad to see that the majority are tending toward the side of reason.

nagano wrote:If not allowing suicide can cause a player to lose a game he rightfully should have won, then it matters.

Your use of "should have" is strange here. If the rules you played by said you won, then you should have won. If the rules disallow suicide, but you would have won if they didn't - then you should have lost. Saying that the game "should" have a result because different rules would have made that result possible is silly. It's like saying that I "should have" won every game I every played because I like rules where I always get 1000 points of komi.

(Incidentally, I do think it would make sense to have suicide be legal. I'm just being a pedant here about how you expressed yourself.)

This forum makes me sad for horses.

I must be having a bad day - I thought this was off topic to begin with...

nagano wrote:

Tsuyoku wrote:Allowing suicides, although it doesn't matter in a huge way, would add to the simplicity of the rules. The use of suicidal ko threats has a cost, and the instances in which suicide can save a group seem very rare to me. In the mean time, I don't actually expect that rule to go anywhere, though. Everyone I play with seems fond of Japanese rules.

If not allowing suicide can cause a player to lose a game he rightfully should have won, then it matters. Glad to see that the majority are tending toward the side of reason.

Actually, it's irrelevant. So long as both parties are expecting and well-versed in the exact same set of rules, there's no uneven playing field.

A single game could be won, drawn or lost depending on if you use Ing, Chinese or Japanese rules. That doesn't make any of these rule sets more or less correct. All you need for a fair game is a clear understanding which lasts throughout the game, on which rules you are using.

I'll admit this argument does not work for cases in which the rules are poorly defined, but that's another story.

wms wrote:

nagano wrote:If not allowing suicide can cause a player to lose a game he rightfully should have won, then it matters.

Your use of "should have" is strange here. If the rules you played by said you won, then you should have won. If the rules disallow suicide, but you would have won if they didn't - then you should have lost. Saying that the game "should" have a result because different rules would have made that result possible is silly. It's like saying that I "should have" won every game I every played because I like rules where I always get 1000 points of komi.

(Incidentally, I do think it would make sense to have suicide be legal. I'm just being a pedant here about how you expressed yourself.)

The use of the words "should have" was meant to imply that, IF the rules were both simple and logical (as they should be) that player would win. Depriving a player of that win is no different than when a game is voided because a triple ko occurred. If you lose because the rules are flawed, it is the fault of the rules, not you.

nagano wrote:The use of the words "should have" was meant to imply that, IF the rules were both simple and logical (as they should be) that player would win. Depriving a player of that win is no different than when a game is voided because a triple ko occurred. If you lose because the rules are flawed, it is the fault of the rules, not you.

The problem is that the lack of being able to commit suicide is something you have determined is flawed. Not everyone agrees.

oren wrote:

nagano wrote:The use of the words "should have" was meant to imply that, IF the rules were both simple and logical (as they should be) that player would win. Depriving a player of that win is no different than when a game is voided because a triple ko occurred. If you lose because the rules are flawed, it is the fault of the rules, not you.

The problem is that the lack of being able to commit suicide is something you have determined is flawed. Not everyone agrees.

If the rules are to be simple and logical, then there is no alternative. If you do not care about either of these criteria, you can make a game any way you like, but that game will inevitably be less perfect as a result.

wms wrote:Your use of "should have" is strange here. If the rules you played by said you won, then you should have won. If the rules disallow suicide, but you would have won if they didn't - then you should have lost. Saying that the game "should" have a result because different rules would have made that result possible is silly. It's like saying that I "should have" won every game I every played because I like rules where I always get 1000 points of komi.

I think you have the example entirely backwards. If the rules say I get 1000 point komi, then after you kill all my groups, you can say "I should have won" and that's part of the reason we know those rules are bull puckey.

nagano wrote:If the rules are to be simple and logical, then there is no alternative. If you do not care about either of these criteria, you can make a game any way you like, but that game will inevitably be less perfect as a result.

The kindest thing I can say is that you haven't bothered to defend these claims. You seem to be under the misapprehension that repeating the words "simple" and "logical" excuses you from demonstrating any actual advantages of your preferred rules of the game. It does not.

hyperpape wrote:

nagano wrote:If the rules are to be simple and logical, then there is no alternative. If you do not care about either of these criteria, you can make a game any way you like, but that game will inevitably be less perfect as a result.

The kindest thing I can say is that you haven't bothered to defend these claims. You seem to be under the misapprehension that repeating the words "simple" and "logical" excuses you from demonstrating any actual advantages of your preferred rules of the game. It does not.

As you are probably aware, I explain the concepts at length here. If you need further clarification, let me know. If you disagree with something specific, then tell me what it is. You can hardly expect me to repeat every detail in all of my posts.

How is additionally forbidding suicide as simple as possible?

If I have to program a representation of a go board, I need to add a check for suicide, and most people I've tried to teach go to try suicide at least once.

It's not simpler if I need to give additional instructions, even if those instructions are really easy to give.