Forum for French Rules
Superko Rule [#3130]
Does this really translate as Situational Superko?
Un joueur, en posant une pierre, ne doit pas redonner au goban un état identique à l'un de ceux qu'il lui avait déjà donné.
Translation (roughly): A player, when playing a stone, may not recreate a position identical to one that he has previously created.
This is either SSK or NSSK, depending on how your interpret "previously created". It restricts the "recreate" part with "when playing a stone", but does not explicitly so restrict the "previously created" part.
I (edit: agree) with Herman, athough the sentence is written a bit obliquely, it clearly implies a situational, not positional, superko rule.
The literal translation would be : A player, when playing a stone, may not recreate a goban state identical to one of those that (up to here there's no ambiguity) he (“il”, the player) had already given it (“lui”, the goban).
As a consequence the rule doesn't apply if it's the other player that had previously given the goban this state.
I think you've misread my comment. It's definitely not positional, no disagreement there. I'm unclear on whether it is basic Situational Superko or Natural Situational Superko (SSK or NSSK). So the question is: Can you play a move that repeats an earlier situation (i.e. a position with the same player to move), if that earlier situation was reached by a pass? IMO the text is not clear on that.
Indeed, sorry, I wasn't aware of the details of SSK and NSSK and didn't check them up at the time. The sentence is indeed unclear on this point. In addition I haven't found any passage in the French rules that clarifies whether a pass is considered to be an actual move (in the AGA rules it seems to be the case).
My French is more than rusty, but I do not see that rule as situational. IIUC, it is about states of the goban, not of the game. Who has the move is not part of the state of the goban, it is part of the state of the game. A pass does not alter the state of the goban, so the state in question must arise by a play.
Well, as Timm has already pointed out, the rule literally says "the player cannot restore a state on the board that he (il) has given it (lui) before". So it does not restrict him to restore states that his opponent has given the board before.
So yes, "state" only concerns the board here, but the rest of the rule makes it clear that the restriction applies only to states that have been created by the same player, hence it is situational.
As to play versus pass, we can wonder why the rule is "Un joueur, en posant une pierre, ne doit pas redonner..." instead of "Un joueur ne doit pas redonner...". Why did the rule writer include the limiting clause "en posant un pierre" (when placing a stone) here?
As always, we must find the fine line between reading the rule too literally and not literally enough :)
As far as I understand the French rules seem to be written in such a way as to be easily read by the general (even beginner) public, rather than in a more “legal” way.
But I guess at some point the tournaments will officially apply some common “European rules” anyway. Maybe they more or less already do though, I've got no idea of the differences throughout Europe ! Do everybody use AGA-related rules ? :D
As I understand it, "situation" in ko rules refers to a board position plus who has the move. Situational superkos prohibit the recreation of situations, not just positions. The French rule is about recreating positions, not situations. A pass may create a situation, since it changes who has the move, but it does not create a position, because the position already existed. Thus, if the opponent created a board position (by a board play), and then the player passes, the rule does not prohibit the player from recreating that position (by a board play) because he did not create the board position, he created the situation.
You don't understand the difference between the positional superko, situational superko and natural situational superko rules.
Oh, yeah?
"In rules parlance, a situation is a position along with the information about who moves first from that position." From Situation.
That's what I said.
"A situational superko rule prohibits the repetition of the same situation."
From Situational Superko.
That's also what I said.
"Natural situational superko rule: A player may not use a board play to recreate a position if he has used one to create it."
From Natural situational superko. Note that the rule refers to a position, not a situation, although it could also refer to a situation, without changing how it works.
I said nothing about the natural situational superko rule.
So you're arguing that the French rule uses the natural situational superko ? If that's the case we don't disagree, as already made clear before.
Then whether or not the French rule uses the more general situational superko depends on whether the player is held responsible for the position if he passes (whether it can be said that he's “given the goban that position”), and the French rules are unclear on that point as we've also already said.
But in any case, the rule is situational in essence. Pass-related issues are just details because they're even less likely to occur.
I have a good deal of experience with rules of games, and rules makers do not always state clearly what they intend. It seems that the French intended to adopt the AGA rules, so, no matter what the rule precisely states, it is intended as a situational superko rule. lepur asks if the rules text actually states a situational superko rule. I don't think so. Neither, apparently, do you.
Incidentally I myself have a good deal of experience in understanding the subtleties of what is written in a text. ♥ If you are familiar with rules writing you should know how easy it is to leave abiguities, and that's what the French rules do. If your point is that they do not “actually” imply a situational superko rule because they're ambiguous, I don't understand why you even bothered answering because we'd already stated it. Geez...
The rules text very clearly states situational superko.
If you disagree, please explain the difference between:
- A player may not repeat a position with the same player to move
- A player may not repeat a position that he has previously created.
Both rules specify a situation, i.e. both a position and a restriction on whose move it is.
In 99.99% of cases, these rules have the exact same effect, the only exceptions are subtle differences related to pass vs. play (i.e. SSK vs NSSK).
EDIT: And for clarity, lets add an example:
![[Diagram]](diagrams/2/2d0115bd24df58781362b01239c50d35.png)
![[Diagram]](diagrams/33/434275bdaad99e746522a6b8dcca8fd0.png)
![[Diagram]](diagrams/7/f6fd429250d5716019503e3dca682345.png)
![[Diagram]](diagrams/10/39f1af6937ef569f5d85f6618fa300d9.png)
Is 
forbidden?
- Under positional superko?
- Yes. It repeats the position after
- Yes. It repeats the position after
- Under AGA?
- No. It repeats the position after , but with a different player to move
- No. It repeats the position after
- Under French?
- No. It repeats the position after , but that position was created by the opponent
- No. It repeats the position after
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")