-John Tromp (http://www.cwi.nl/~tromp/)
[I have deleted some superfluous comments. -wjh]
... here is a re-post of the super-simplified version of the rules, authored by John Tromp and myself. They are essentially the New Zealand rules, re-worded to be as simple and elegant as possible. The NZ rules are in turn the simplest version of Chinese-style rules around. The NZ rules are worded with definitions given recursively, [which may be hard to read.] John Tromp came up with the key idea of a stone "seeing" (or as I've presently worded it "reaching") a different color. This was the brilliant step which enabled such succinct rules. My modest contribution was the wording for the end-of-game criterion, and putting an expansion into a second tier of interpretations rather than rules. This was (1) to keep the logical rules as simple as possible, and (2) to keep things close to how the game is actually played by humans.
...
Before giving them, let me just re-iterate the motivations for wanting to adopt Chinese-style rules. They are by far the simplest, most elegant, most easily worded, and most easily umpired of the main rule sets. The matter of when the game finishes, and what is dead/removable, in particular, is far more logical and simple than in the Japanese variants, where the main motivations seem to be undue respect for tradition, and a feeling for the "beauty of omission".... It is of PARTICULAR concern that the rules be made as "natural" and comprehensible as possible for beginners, so that they not be turned away from the game by puzzlement or outrage, notably at the unfair-looking "free removal" of scoring prisoners at the end of the game. Many of us have known this to happen with promising beginners. Western countries especially cannot afford this kind of wastage of recruits.
Another point which has come up in email is this. There are four main areas in which Chinese and Japanese rules differ, and are effectively independent of one another. So in principle there are 2x2x2x2 = 16 ways of forming the rules, in these respects. Only the first difference is crucial.
(i) The whole network of rules concerning scoring; prisoners; end of the game; passing; removable stones; special positions; when are extra moves needed. This is "the" defining difference between the two rulesets. Chinese is far and away the simpler, by a country mile.
(ii) The ko rules. Japanese is simpler, but has an annoying gap:- non-games resulting from long cycles. Chinese is more elegantly wordable.
(iii) Suicide. Neutral; I have a slight preference for allowing it. (It allows slightly more options, thus more exercise of skill.)
(iv) Where to put handicap stones. I much prefer the Chinese "free-placing"
style - more game variation, and more opportunity for exercising skill.
So, to the rules.
Some people may object that I've "cheated" by relegating many concepts to `comments and interpretations', and have thus kept the core rules artificially concise. However I don't think so. The core rules are precisely those that (e.g.) a computer or game-theoretician needs to know; which surely qualifies them as being the "real" rules. The remaining `comments and interpretations' are merely about those matters that real live players have to worry about for reasons of convenience, impatience, and a desire (usually) to play with physical equipment.
It should be noted that (especially for tournaments) there would need to be a further layer of rules and proprieties concerning things like clocks and time, physical disturbances, ambiguous placements, getting unfair advice, and so on. (What Barry Phease succinctly dubbed "not rules of the game, but rules about playing the game".) I have completely ignored such matters.
2. Each point on the grid may be colored black, white or empty. A point P is said to reach a color C, if there is a path of orthogonally adjacent points of P's color from P to a point of color C.
3. Starting with an empty grid, the players have alternate turns, black first.
4. A turn is either a pass; or a move that does not leave a grid pattern identical to one that that player has previously left.
5. A move consists of coloring an empty point one's own color; then emptying all the opponent-colored points that don't then reach empty; and then emptying all the player's own-colored points that don't then reach empty.
6. The game ends after two consecutive passes.
7. A player's score is the number of points of his color, plus the number of empty points that don't reach the opponent's color.
8. The player with the larger score at the end of the game is the winner. If the scores are equal at the end, it is a tie.
3. For handicap games, the weaker player may be awarded a handicap of "n stones"; which means he is black and starts with n consecutive moves.
4. "Has left previously" means by either a move or a pass.
5. Using boards, coloring an empty point means placing a stone of one's own color on the point, (a line intersection of the board). Coloring a point empty, i.e. emptying a point, means removing the stone from it.
6. A player who says "pass", must be interpreted as saying "This is to be considered a formal pass if you make another move; and also if you say pass and we then agree to remove the obvious dead stones still on the board; but if we disagree on these then it is still your turn." Then if both players say "pass", but disagree on removal, the second speaker's concession of turn (being later) over-rides the first, and the first speaker moves again. It should then be a matter of propriety that any subsequent saying of "pass" should be phrased "I formally pass", and be accepted as binding as in rules 6 and 7.
7. The scores can be conveniently counted after removal per interpretation 6 has occurred, by counting up each player's points on the board as it then stands. (There is an alternative method involving putting removed stones back on the board and re-arranging all the stones; but this is not recommended for learners.)
8. By prior agreement, for games between equals, a fixed amount can be added to white's final score. This is called "komi", and is commonly 7 points.
--------------------------------------
Grateful acknowledgement to John Tromp for most of the ideas here, and for many helpful comments and conversations on these matters.
---------------------------
Bill Taylor wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
---------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: tromp@cwi.nl (John Tromp)
Subject: Re: Tromp/Taylor rules of Go
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:50:35 GMT
klooster@dutiag.twi.tudelft.nl (Marnix Klooster) writes:
Recently I read "Taylor's Concise Rules of Go" on Jan van der Steen's
I have a question about interpretation comment (6), which says
- A player who says "pass", must be interpreted as saying "This is to be considered a formal pass if you make another move; and also if you say pass and we then agree to remove the obvious dead stones still on the board; but if we disagree on these then it is still your turn." Then if both players say "pass", but disagree on removal, the second speaker's concession of turn (being later) overrides the first, and the first speaker moves again.
This is quite complex, even if it is `just' an interpretation. My question is about the word "your" on the indicated line: shouldn't this be "my"? Because the subsequent explanation says that after two passes "the first speaker moves again," which I presume to be the player first saying "pass".
Looks like it should be.
Which brings me to a simpler alternative for the above comment:
- The first time both players pass consecutively, they may either agree to remove the obvious dead stones still on the board and end the game, or play on if they disagree on removal.
Is this correct? Or am I missing something?
Yes, this is a simpler alternative. The reason Bill chose a more elaborate formulation is to keep in line with the core rules, which demand that the game be over after two passes. In my own formulation of the rules (http://www.cwi.nl/~tromp/go.html), I also take the liberty of deviating from the core rules, by stating:
As a practical shortcut, the following amendment allows "dead stone
removal":
This is very much like your proposal, except that it allows players to repeatedly disagree. I can allow this without fear of endless arguing, since 4 consecutive passes can only be avoided by placing at least one stone in every continuation, which the superko rule puts a bound on...
regards,
-John Tromp (http://www.cwi.nl/~tromp/)
From: mathwft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Tromp/Taylor rules of Go
Date: 19 Jun 1996 02:57:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University
of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ.
klooster@dutiag.twi.tudelft.nl (Marnix Klooster) writes:
Recently I read "Taylor's Concise Rules of Go" on Jan van der Steen'sI have a question about interpretation comment (6), which says
- A player who says "pass", must be interpreted as saying "This is to be considered a formal pass if you make another move; and also if you say pass and we then agree to remove the obvious dead stones still on the board; but if we disagree on these then it is still your turn." Then if both players say "pass", but disagree on removal, the second speaker's concession of turn (being later) overrides the first, and the first speaker moves again.
This is quite complex, even if it is `just' an interpretation.
I agree. It *is* annoyingly convoluted, but all my attempts to improve it have left worse problems. Any help would be *much* appreciated.
question is about the word "your" on the indicated line: shouldn't this be "my"?
No; it should be "your". However I don't blame you for the mistake! I will try to elucidate with a couple of mini-scenarios below.
Because the subsequent explanation says that after two passes "the first speaker moves again," which I presume to be the player first saying "pass".
Correct. Remember if one says "pass" the other can move again COME WHAT MAY, and with area counting this need never be harmful to him. So if either has the slightest doubt, they should just MOVE at every opportunity.
So it might either go...
...or possibly...
Which brings me to a simpler alternative for the above comment:
- The first time both players pass consecutively, they may either agree to remove the obvious dead stones still on the board and end the game, or play on if they disagree on removal.
I agree, this has exactly the same effect. However, I don't like having such a thing in the *logical* rules - these have no place for any "discussions".
However, if you meant that your paragraph should be in the explanations etc, maybe this could be good. But not just as is, or there would be a conflict between 2 passes ending the game (in the core rules), and not necessarily ending it (in the explanations). So there would still have to be, before your paragraph, a convention/expanation that: *saying* "pass" did NOT necessarily mean making a game-theoretic pass, unless the opponent moved again.
It would be nice to see if all this could be made both shorter and more readable than my version. I sincerely hope it can, and await help.
---------------------------
Bill Taylor wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
---------------------------
"Do not pass" GO = do not collect $200.
---------------------------