KeeRulesOfGo/ v5.0

Sub-page of KeeRulesOfGo

Just feel free to add your comments about Kee Rules v5.2 below.

Robert Pauli: To version v5.2.

  • Wouldn't call it dead because conventionally this refers to non-seki groups lacking eye shape.

Wilton Kee: I changed it to "captive". Is it better?

  • It's not clear how a position enters a book, nor exactly which book(s).

Wilton Kee: A board position is entered to the lastly opened book when some stones are removed after such board position.

  • What if the produced position is in the lastly opened book and new to some other opened books? Don't C4 and C5 overlap?

Wilton Kee: Impossible. When this position firstly occurred in the lastly opened book, it should indeed be new to those opened books. Then it already brought the game back to the earliest of them at that time.

  • Participation always according to the lastly opened book?

Wilton Kee: Yes. But bear in mind some books opened later might have been closed.

  • At most one position in the ending history?

Wilton Kee: No. Many different positions can exist in the ending history.


Just feel free to add your comments about Kee Rules v5.0 below.

Robert Pauli:
Before I ask how a ko is handled, tell me, what's a round-table repeating board position ??
Agreeing in a suspending board position should be mentioned in "Ending", not?

Wilton Kee:

Thank you. I have modified my wordings.

Robert Pauli: OK, now I get it: I take a ko, you take back and repeat, I take again and also repeat, suspension. Technical disagreement then spoils your turn - you better had made a ko threat. :-)

So far so good, but what happens in that round-robin "ko" I put on v4.0?

[Diagram]

P1, W's turn



History only holds P1. Suspension history is empty. White starts:

 P1  oo..  ..xx   (= 2nd row + 3rd row)
 P2  ooo.  ..xx
 P3  ooo.  .xxx
 P4  oooo  .x..
 P5  ..oo  xx..
 P6  .ooo  xx..
 P7  .ooo  xxx.
 P8  oooo  ..x.
 P9  oo..  ..xx   (B repeated P1)
 P10 ooo.  ..xx   (W repeated P2)

White then wrests away Black's turn via suspension and (technical) disagreement: White's "disturbance" has payed off.

No, sorry, not what I'm looking for. I'd like to have the ruleset "convince" them to leave it untouched.

Wilton Kee:

I just wonder if it is appropriate to have a ruleset convincing players to leave this position untouched.

Kee Rule v5.0 tells a player, if you break the ko rule, you may completely lose your sente. There are several types of cycling moves if there is no ko rule. Now we can classify them into two categories: real ko and disturbing ko:

In real ko, players do not want to lose a sente in all moves. But the spirit of ko is one of them has to sacrify. Your position, a kind of superko, is an example, just that what sacrified is too much to believe.

In disturbing ko, pass is involved in the cycling moves as an indication that one sente is already of no value somewhere. This means that more loss of sente, as in Kee Rule v.5.0, may be required to break the cycle. Given the board is sufficiently large, certain number of loss of sente would make the disturbance pays.

After realizing this distinction, I doubt if the rule you hope really exists, or if exists, is appropriate. Leaving ko rule as one important rule in majority of rulesets, exceptional grant to this superko draws my memory about the 1949 Japanese rule with hundreds of special cases.


This is a copy of the living page "KeeRulesOfGo/ v5.0" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2014 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About