title objection [#946]
: title objection
(2007-04-11 16:12) [#3286]
I object to the title, which is subjective. The links can as well be provided from the general rules page. There is no point in having this page, since it would need a "difficult rules" counterpart, which will only add to the debate.
: Re: title objection
(2007-04-11 17:12) [#3287]
Sure, there is some subjectivity, but is there anyone who thinks that the Ing rules or Japanese '89 rules are simple? ;-)
Besides, there is an objective measure of complexity, the length of a computer program that represents the rules; i. e., a referee. As far as I know, none of the professional rule sets are clear enough to write such a program.
: ((no subject))
(2007-04-11 20:05) [#3289]
Sure, the simplicity is arguable. But where do you draw the line?
Well, I don't care all that much, but imagine a page "good players".
: Re: ((no subject))
(2007-04-11 20:48) [#3290]
Where do you draw the line? Well, I added some rule sets that I would call simple. Maybe other people will add more.
Besides, simplicity of rules is a minor virtue.