Yes, a move like that. Although I suppose that might be a little strong, and the second player would want to swap. Say it was K19. Then player two has to ask, “Would I rather go second, and be the first to play a corner, and allow player one to take K19 as a first move?” If the first two moves are K19 followed by Q16, no komi, then white would probably be ahead, right? So player two would decline the swap, and take the first corner. On the other hand, if player one plays C3, then player two would probably choose to swap, since C3 followed by, say, Q16, no komi, would favor black.
Ahh! I believe I‘m beginning to understand.
You are talking about no-koMI Go, right?
This is very different from my original question regarding no-ko Go.
2 Likes
Oh my gosh! Silly me. How did I get that wrong? My post belongs in some other thread! Sorry about that.
3 Likes
Getting rid of the ko rule would be just torture. It would be a game to see who gives up taking the ko first.
3 Likes
Agreed Ko is a major component of a fun GO game. The unsettled nature is exciting.#
nah, just no. Ko leads to some very interesting positions and strategies imo (as seen in some Tsumes), plus it’s a really clever way to implement some kind of non-repetition rule (unlike in Chess for example where the non-repetition rule there mostly lead to just draws)
1 Like
This can only mean a) you have only played a few games or b) you do not pay attention to strategic differences that would have made a difference under other ko rules.
Japanese rules do have special rules about ko (the exceptional rule about long cycles and some Japanese rulesets, such as the official professional Japanese 1989 Rules, have ko-pass rules)! Instead, positional superko does not have any special rules about ko because there is only the one ko rule for all positions. You might mean something else: special strategies for some kos other than basic strategies for basic kos.
It is in the Go Variants forum but I think that you do not want to create a go variant. Instead, you seem to have a beginner question; ko fights and having some ko rule(s) are part of the game; you need to accept this. Regardless, your suggestion of a Chess-like rule would destroy the basic ko fights we all (except maybe you) love but can be discussed for long cycle kos if one wants to inhibit them or their strategic consequences.
Japanese style long cycle ko rules try to do so but hide their implicit case distinction of long cycles with versus without the prisoner difference 0 to work well only under territory scoring. To enable such long cycle ko rules also for area scoring, one can make such or a similar distinction explicit in the long cycle ko rules, as in the Long Cycle Rules or 3-plays-ko-rules . The practically most far-fetching long cycle ko rules, the Basic-Fixed-Ko-Rules, combine the basic ko rule with the Fixed Ko Rule to exclude all long cycles from strategy so that only a basic ko can be fought.
Using only the Fixed Ko Rule also prevents each basic ko from being fought so an open basic ko is like one eye. This would create a go variant with extremely different strategy but actually achieve what allegedly you initially wanted: to have Go without any ko fights.
In some kinds of three-ko recycles this has happened, where Black or White alone has the right to continute or terminate the kos. If the mighty side is at advantage even after giving up the kos, he can win his game, or he can make the game an even.
actually, i think the rule should go the other way around, ie, instead of making rule forbiding ko and make it a draw, there should be a rule forbidding the 3 way ko (super ko) and stop declaring the game a draw.
1 Like