Rules of Go - second tutorial / Discussion

Dieter: The big problem with Basic rules of Go is that it represents the Tromp-Taylor rules, which I like the most too, but which are not the ones the EGF or Nihon Ki-in use. Currently it is impossible to devise basic rules, concise and understandable which are also generally accepted. A more personal note: I find the phrasing on that page a little too rigid-logical. For instance I like "An earlier board composition cannot be repeated" better than "it is forbidden to repeat all points' colours".

Bill: Let me second what Dieter says (although I like my own rules better ;-)). There are basic rules that are shared by all modern rule sets. Moi, I would at least note that there are differences where there are. Also, the rules say that players make plays by placing stones on the board (and sometimes removing stones). Then to talk about the colour of a point is confusing. Better to say that making a play that repeats a legal position of the whole board is forbidden.

RobertJasiek: Surely, there are rules differences but does this mean that any beginner needs to know unless he WANTS to know? We have a detailed RulesOfGo and link to that page so why overload every beginner with more already on the BasicRulesOfGoAdvanced page??

Charles Matthews I don't object to those rules. I do rather object to a name such as 'basic'. Everyone can post here, but the way we are going we'll have a long discussion ... The problem I have with that is only that (as seemed to be consensus on RGG recently) the same amount of time spent on writing new material, and commenting on/glossing published rule sets, would be much more constructive.

Dieter: Was the consensus on RGG a consensus about what your problem is or a consensus on how we should spend our time? In the latter case, shouldn't we inform the rest of the Go world of RGG's decision ? Seriously, I don't know who you are blaming for what in the above comment.

Jasonred : Yeah, but what's wrong with those original pages? If there's something about those links to ko threats, suicide and whatever, just edit those pages. Put a little summary on the top, then say "for more detail, read below". There's no point in having 5 pages on ko then people have to read all five to learn everything on them. So... as I said, just summarise it for newbies to Go. heck, I'll do one on komi then.

Jasonred : I changed my mind, the pages are well written enough that even total newbies should be able to understand them, and the most basic bits are at the start. So, all in all, why bother writing it all over again? The pages serve their purpose, writing about them again here seems like a matter of copy paste?

Charles Matthews Of course it is ridiculous to talk about consensus on RGG, really. BasicRulesOfGoAdvanced is one of those oxymorons, isn't it? It might as well be called AdvancedRulesOfGoBasic, in the sense that Tromp-Taylor rules are very compressed, and what would be helpful is to have an introduction to them for those who didn't already know what they should say. The point where Robert and I seemed to agree is that more can be done to identify purposes of sets of rules. The main division that is important here is between 'instructions' (allowing people to understand the mechanism of the game, and start playing), and all other 'rules for experts', which have several purposes like computer go and tournament direction.

RobertJasiek If you think that the page title BasicRulesOfGo should be something else, why not? I just would not know which other title might be better. If you think that "all points' colours" should be replaced by "position", why not? However, then you must ensure that "position" is understood, i.e. either you ask the beginners to learn yet another term or you are extremely careful whenever you use that term. Charles, I do not only distinguish between basic rules, tournament rules, and rules for specialists but there is also rather basic rules information that a beginner need not know during his first few games but might like to know rather soon. The latter is what should be treated on this page, however you want to call its title. In particular, rather soon a beginner would wonder how to score empty points adjacent to both black and white. Such must be explained and should not be confused with rules for specialists...

Bill: Robert, how about "Simple Rules of Go"?

RobertJasiek Why would that be an improvement over Basic Rules of Go? Rather it would be confusing since there is a ruleset with that title and since the BasicRulesOfGo starts to confuse beginners about suicide (allowed or not allowed...?) while it should say little or nothing about suicide. This is not particularly simple any longer.

Bill Area scoring is no more basic than territory scoring. A superko rule is no more basic than prohibiting immediate kos. Calling such rules basic is to make a claim that is not true. But you can argue that those rules are simpler.

As for suicide, I agree that rules for beginners should not say much about choices. Why complicate things? But that is an argument for presenting simple rules (as opposed to basic rules). Rules can be presented as simple without the need to refer explicitly to other choices. You can say at the top of the page something like: "Go has rules that differ slightly in different places around the world. Here are some simple rules that you can use in many places." No need to go into the differences in any detail.

RobertJasiek This is not the most suitable place to discuss how basic some instance of rules detail is. So I shall not discuss it here but just say that I have not made a claim that the current page title BasicRulesOfGo would be the best possible one. I only mean that Simple Rules of Go is not a better title and therefore a change of the page title is not justified if that would be the new title. However, please note that I consider area scoring to be mandatory for the BasicRulesOfGo page because a) it is at least as simple as territory scoring and b) if scoring is presented in a way that allows the beginner to start while scoring all his games by himself (because the scoring description is logically complete), then area scoring agrees to usual go strategy while (logically complete) territory scoring introduces arcane strategy (e.g., pass fights and such) that does not occur in usual go strategy as used throughout the world of go. Concerning the general remark, why not, but why must it be on the BasicRulesOfGo rather than the BasicRulesOfGoAdvanced? and why should it be the first rather than the last remark? One should introduce go rules as something basic/simple and not as something necessarily difficult.

Bill: Cher Robert, I agree that area scoring is best for beginners learning alone or with a few friends. But not to tell them that others may play by slightly different rules is misleading and may lead to arguments and dismay.

I can see how you would wish to avoid confusion with your own Simple Rules. But the current title is a misnomer. Let me propose Easy Rules of Go as the title. :-)

RobertJasiek: Why would you want to tell about different rules used at various places on BasicRulesOfGo instead of on BasicRulesOfGoAdvanced??

Bill: So as not to give a false impression.

And I do not want to go into any detail at all about the differences. It would not be necessary to do so on a page presenting Simple Rules or Easy Rules.

Charles Matthews Oh, if I had wanted to change the title, I would have done that already. I have my own ideas about the rules topic, I suppose. What matters most here is probably that someone who arrives at SL through a Hikaru link should have something to read about the rules, that doesn't immediately depend on distinguishing flavours of superko.

RobertJasiek Dieter, you need not worry about differences to EGF, Nihon Kiin, or AGA rules. The Basic Rules, which are functionally practically the same as Tromp-Taylor or Simple Rules, differ from the aformentioned rules only slightly if you consider the following: Soon EGF-Ing rules will be interpreted pretty much like Basic Rules plus an option to have an agreement phase. (Such EGF-Ing rules are being in preparation.) AGA rules are equivalent to that (using pass stones is another handling but just for the purpose of maintaining that equivalence). Nihon Kiin Rules are different of course. However, in EGF tournaments it is quite likely that sooner or later there will be a simplification of Nihon Kiin rules that approaches French rules. I believe so because the conflict caused by forgotten dame must break out some time. (I would like to see better rules instead of Nihon Kiin rules before it breaks out but I am still in a minority position. The EGF committee first wants to gain experiences with the new EGF-Ing rules, I guess, before it will also allow easier Japanese style rules.) To summarize, the Basic Rules prepare for rules of play used in tournaments now or soon. Instead of Basic Rules you could also explain, say, the International Rules to beginners. However, by explaining an optional agreement phase on this page rather than on BasicRulesOfGo, the beginners are not overloaded on the first page they read but still get their good chance to read about optional agreement phase, as is useful in EGF tournament play.

Charles Matthews The purpose of the EGF-Ing rules being? The connection of this high politics and time-wasting to the business of bringing people into the game escapes me. Dame in another sense of the Japanese.

RobertJasiek The main purpose is to have rules that can be applied, can be applied correctly, and this by both players and referees independenly of whether they have or have not read them. Call that dame if you like. I call it the greatest achievement in EGF rules history.

Bill: I call it Ing rules. Not!

RobertJasiek: What do you mean?

Bill: Ing rules are not clear enough to be applied correctly, even by those who have read them.

RobertJasiek: Yes. That's why rules for the EGF shall be such that they can be applied correctly.

Could someone please explan the tie in the Rules of GO - second tutorial. As far as I can see its a 3-1 win for white.

Thanks Johannes de Jong

was: "Discussion moved from here to /Discussion."

In general, only my opinion: Discussions should be kept on the main page, like in Bensons Algorithm, after the organized, encyclopedic content of the page. (otherwise they are somewhat hidden, which hinders the improvement of the page a bit) --ab --sorry!!

Shaydwyrm: IMO you should bring this up at Meta Discussion rather than just moving the discussions back to the parent page, especially since other users are actively doing the opposite on other pages.