Forum for New Concise Rules
(2017-07-10 22:49) [#10977]
Nice job! I think you did a good job of avoiding "definition-itis" arising from attempting to define too much. In practice, most people learn enough of the rules to play successfully just by playing with someone who is experienced. Having complete and consistent rules is mainly needed for theoretical (mathematical analysis or for computer programming. I wonder what rules AlphaGo and its ilk use.
: Re: Congratulations
(2017-07-11 08:26) [#10978]
For that purpose, e.g., avoiding "eponymously" (which I had to look up in a dictionary) and using "same" would be better and actually is used in the next sentence. If rules are for those already knowing the game roughly, then describing the playing material is also superfluous, instead of only including some implicit rules, such as the not mentioned start by Black on the empty board. See the parent page for my suggestion of definition-avoiding concise rules.
184.108.40.206: ((no subject))
(2017-07-11 12:47) [#10979]
"Same" would be ambiguous. Does it mean both players play stones that are the same color? Eponymous carries the corrrect meaning. The purpose was to get the clearest meaning in the fewest words, not in the fewest letters.
By the way, I've noticed more than one set of rules linked by your page using the terms group and point exactly as I do. (I noticed you campaigning against group on your commentary on some flavor of Korean rules, but haven't yet seen you object elsewhere to "points")
: Re: ((no subject))
(2017-07-11 14:13) [#10980]
My mistakes (points in Simple Rules) of the past when writing some of my early rulesets. I do not recall abuse of groups and hope did not because I argued for string or set of strings early (at least since 1998, maybe earlier).
As to comments on other rulesets, I did not spent as much time on each as on Japanese or Ing Rules.