gwnn Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 If the rules were so clear, why was it necessary to add The rules should be used in a spirit of fairness and cooperation. Where disputes arise they should first of all be settled by the players themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 If the rules were so clear, why was it necessary to add That's just a part of the explanation, not in the rules themselves. :P Go rules theorists distinguish between the rules of the game (such as the ones I have presented here) and tournament rules (such as "you are not allowed to go to the bathroom and there look up sequences in a book"). Most would agree that it is possible to make the former absolutely clear, but not the latter. The "spirit of fairness and cooperation" helps more with the things which aren't covered directly by these rules. Nevertheless, I believe that the given rules, on their own, are clear (for me even without the explanation, but I assume it helps for non-Go-players). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Go is a much simpler game. Not in the intellectual challenge of playing it, but in the mechanics of play. So it's hardly fair to compare the rules of the two games. Furthermore, the partnership aspect of bridge, and the flexibility of partnership agreements, adds a dimension that's almost unique among mind sports. Writing laws and regulations for bridge is really challenging because so much of the game is based on judgement. Players toss around words like "weak" and "strong", but only novices go strictly by HCP when judging the strength of hands, more advanced players use judgement, but they have different styles. Yet somehow we need regulations that allow for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Go is a much simpler game. Not in the intellectual challenge of playing it, but in the mechanics of play. So it's hardly fair to compare the rules of the two games. Sure, I agree with this, I was just disagreeing with Mr. Stevenson's assertion. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzalz Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I invite you to point out the unclear parts of the following rules: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp/rules.htm Are there different variations of the rules or was I just taught the wrong rules? a) The scoring is completely different from how I learned it.B) Are suicide moves legal? I had learned that they were explicitly illegal, but the rules seem to explicitly endorse them.c) The end of game rule seems a complete mess. You agree the game is over, disagree on dead stones, disagree on whose turn it is, thereby throwing the scoring into complete chaos. Additionally the method of deciding the game is over seems confrontational[instead of say two consecutive passes ending the game]. Can players pass back and forth in a game of chicken while not agreeing the game is over thereby extending the game indefinitely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Are there different variations of the rules or was I just taught the wrong rules? Yes. :) a) The scoring is completely different from how I learned it. There are two basic types of scoring: area (chinese) and territory (japanese). Given normal play, the results will be the same +/- 1 Point. However, Territory-scoring rules are much more complicated as they require the use of hypothetical sequences, rather than allowing players to play it out in case of disagreement. B) Are suicide moves legal? I had learned that they were explicitly illegal, but the rules seem to explicitly endorse them. Yes, they are legal in these rules. The tactical implications are small, making a difference at most 1 game in 1000. c) The end of game rule seems a complete mess. You agree the game is over, disagree on dead stones, disagree on whose turn it is, thereby throwing the scoring into complete chaos. Additionally the method of deciding the game is over seems confrontational[instead of say two consecutive passes ending the game]. Can players pass back and forth in a game of chicken while not agreeing the game is over thereby extending the game indefinitely? In practice, if both players pass, they effectively agree that there are no further worthwhile moves. They can of course pass indefinitely, if both are happy to do so, but neither has an advantage from doing so (there is a mathematical proof for this for an even more formalized version of these rules). If it matters whose turn it is, then there are still worthwhile moves to be played, so you should not have agreed to end the game. If you would not be perfectly happy for opponent to resume play, then play on. If both players missed something big enough to swing the game, then neither deserves to win. In practice, this does not happen except possibly with people who have been playing for less than a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Thank you for making my case for me. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I do not believe that the fact that people might be confused if they have previously had other notions as to what the rules are detracts from the clarity of the rules text itself, so if that is your entire case... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.