- Go is played on a 19x19 square grid of points, by two players called Black and White.
- Each point on the grid may be colored black, white or empty.
- A point P, not colored C, is said to reach C, if there is a path of (vertically or horizontally) adjacent points of P's color from P to a point of color C.
- Clearing a color is the process of emptying all points of that color that don't reach empty.
- Starting with an empty grid, the players alternate turns, starting with Black.
- A turn is either a pass; or a move that doesn't repeat an earlier grid coloring.
- A move consists of coloring an empty point one's own color; then clearing the opponent color, and then clearing one's own color.
- The game ends after two consecutive passes.
- A player's score is the number of points of her color, plus the number of empty points that reach only her color.
- The player with the higher score at the end of the game is the winner. Equal scores result in a tie.
As their pseudonym implies they try to optimize
- simplicity of rules
- conclusiveness and therefore unambiguity
while at the same time trying to keep the 'spirit' of the game by satisfying the following boundary condition
- keeping things close to how Go is played by humans.
Bill Taylor: "These 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." (quoted from http://tromp.github.io/go.html)
Significant differences of Taylor Tromp to New Zealand rules would include:
- Usage of positional superko (New Zealand rules use situational superko)
- Scoring ensues after two successive passes. (with New Zealand rules the game enters the agreement phase if both players concur that competetive play is over.)
Actually, New Zealand rules use the situational superko rule, not the positional one. At least, they do on 6 Feb 2007. As Tromp and Taylor intentionally made their rules equivalent to the New Zealand rules ( http://tromp.github.io/go.html), I guess that the New Zealand rules must have changed since. The history page evidences how the rules have changed a few times since their beginning. --anonymous
Since, I think 1996, Tromp-Taylor uses positional superko. This decision was made independently of New Zealand rules. --RobertJasiek
Flower: Let us change the main article then so that it does not insinuate that NZ rules use PSK :). I noticed that TT rules end the game after only two successive passes. Would that not cause trouble in certain KO situations? --Flower, 2007-02-20
Robert Jasiek: The "trouble" might exist in your perception. It does not exist in my perception. I do not mind if rules do have strategic consequences, even if they differ from such tradition that existed during some times in some parts of the world.
Herman Hiddema: Trouble with ko situations seems extremely unlikely. Under area scoring, not defending a ko does not increase your score, but suppose you get into a situation where you have no ko threats but want your opponent to fill or otherwise defend the ko (Can anyone construct an example where this would be desirable?). Playing in your own territory or in you opponents territory does not change the score, so you can simply play in your own (or your opponents) territory as a ko threat, and if your opponent does not defend the ko you can retake it.
Note that the above rules do not include a removal phase. The only rule on scoring is rule 9, therefore both players should capture all dead stones before passing. On John Tromp's page, there is a comment regarding removal of dead stones (Comment 8) which includes a 4 pass game end.
Bill: Here is an example from the Ing rules, slightly altered.
= pass, = pass
White wins by 4 under Tromp-Taylor rules. Black wins by 25 under Ing rules. (Tromp-Taylor: white 11+1=12 points _vs_ black 8 points)
ihope?: Well, that's if Black passes on . What happens if the game is played out the rest of the way, as Tromp-Taylor scoring is meant to handle (as I see it, at least)?
ihope?: It seems to me that it would be best for Black to play right below on , as this would capture White's group. Could White recapture Black afterward? It seems unlikely.
Karl Knechtel: That play does not capture the White stones, because they have a liberty at the point where White has just captured (with ). Therefore it is instead a suicide in the corner (the Black stones are cleared).
John Tromp: Black 6 pass is a mistake. Instead Black should suicide! Then, after white adjacent to 1, black recaptures in the upper left, and proceeds to kill White. But White 3 is also a mistake. After White 3 at 5, both sides should pass, for W+2.
Here's another example I was thinking about, admittedly contrived. Under japanese rules (and I think other rulesets too) after black passes, white passes, and the white stones are declared dead and removed. But in tromp-taylor, black must actually try to remove them, but the only legal move is self-atari, so black must still pass. White passes, the stones are alive, and in fact that ko point is white territory. I doubt such a position would ever occur in a game, but it is worth noting. --emeraldemon
Black would just play suicide in the top right instead of passing, then white can't do anything useful. --Dave
emeraldemon: True, I forgot suicide is legal in TT rules. So the problem only occurs when black has no play that doesn't lose, like so:
That looks good. I was thinking even single-stone suicide was legal, so that it would be harder to fix, but on second thought a single-stone suicide would violate positional superko, so that example would work.. -- Dave
When I read these rules I get the impression that playing in an area where captured stones once were is illegal, am I right? Here Black plays 1, White Captures at A. I read the rules as saying Black has no legal move now. (rule 6)