![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")
In the rare case that a suicide move would be useful, why not allow it? It seems to make the game more interesting than not allowing it, if anything. Moreover, why have a rule that doesn't serve any (AFAICS) practical purpose? Seems inelegant and lame to me.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but that's because this page fails to give any argumentation for or against said rule. Disappointing. :-/
Tradition.
If suicide is not forbidden, you have the situation you need to touch the stones of your opponent. You play, grab the prisoners (which belong to your opponent now) to hand them over. What happens if you (my mistake) put them in your own bowl? If your not allowed to touch the stones, the move of your opponent starts with removing stones. Should he do this in his own time?
Interesting consideration. However...
You play, grab the prisoners (which belong to your opponent now) to hand them over.
Yes, that would be the case.
What happens if you (my mistake) put them in your own bowl?
That seems unlikely to me as every go player is used to putting captured stones in the lid. Now, if you accidentally put them in your own lid, they stand out, as they're the opposite color from stones you normally capture.
Bill: Allowing suicide, whatever its virtues, increases the complexity of the game. Repetitions become more possible. Even with a superko rule, checking whether a position has repeated becomes more difficult.
That said, I doubt if the ancients even considered allowing suicide.