New Zealand Rules Are Actually Closer To Tromp-Taylor

OGS Development
7

For clarity, these are what the three scenarios for ending the game, using the TT amended rules, look like:

Scenario Setup

  1. Normal gameplay is underway
  2. Black Passes
  3. White Passes

 
Scenario 1: Players Agree About Dead Stones

  1. Agreement Phase (AP) begins
  2. Players agree on dead stones (even if takes multiple APs to agree)
  3. Score is tallied and game ends

Note: John Tromp explains that when players enter an AP and decide to resume play, the game proceeds as if no AP ever existed. It doesn’t matter how many times players enter the AP during a single match. The game history should only ever reflect that the players entered an AP a single time.

 
Scenario 2: Players Unable To Reach Agreement

  1. Agreement Phase begins
  2. Players do not agree about dead stones
  3. Agreement Phase is over, like it had never existed, and gameplay resumes
  4. Since Black made the first of two passes, it’s Black’s move again. If Black refuses to move or pass, then Black will eventually forfeit because turn time will run out. To speed things up, Black could just choose to resign.

 
Scenario 3: Four Successive Passes Occur

  1. Agreement Phase begins
  2. Players do not agree about dead stones
  3. Players agree to resume gameplay
  4. Agreement Phase is over, like it had never existed, and gameplay resumes
  5. Black decides to not play after all, Passes
  6. White decides to not play either, Passes
  7. Score is tallied and game ends (no stones are removed, all stones considered live)

 
@yebellz
I tip my hat to you yebellz. I tried to analyze the rules critically and I wasn’t 100% sure that your interpretation of them was accurate. It made sense to me but I felt there was enough ambiguity to warrant further research. I reached out on /r/baduk and received responses, but they did not mirror your explanation. With sufficient doubt I reached out to John Tromp himself, and he answered my questions directly. His responses confirm that your interpretation is 99% accurate. I tip my hat to you, because that is a lot farther than my interpretation got me :blush:.

Concerning the differences, he stated that before gameplay begins, the players should agree upon utilizing two consecutive passes or the player AP. It is not a case of “if there is a dispute, go ahead and activate the player AP.” I actually prefer this as it prevents another vector for disagreement (arguing over how the game ends, two passes vs an AP). However, I can’t imagine why human players would ever decide to not utilize the Amended rules. So, this feels like a moot point. But still, that’s the official ruling regarding how the Amended rules fit into the Official Rules picture.

Concerning the uncertainty of how a game concludes, on your numbered list #5 states they play until they have made four consecutive passes. Mr. Tromp explains that to achieve four consecutive passes, both players would have to pass immediately after leaving the player AP. So the above Scenario #3 is what four passes looks like in a real world example. So it looks like my original post had it right the first time around.

The list item “:x: Game Conclusion: Two successive passes” should in fact be a :white_check_mark:. OGS currently utilizes the amended TT rules Agreement Phase. New Zealand also uses the AP. So for now, the :white_check_mark: is deserved. However, once OGS’s code for game score evaluation is perfected, the game will then use the Official TT rules two successive passes rule to conclude the game. Were that to happen, an :x: would be deserved. So I’ve edited that in the original post.

Now I just need to figure out how OGS’ NZ ruleset handles Superko and how it awards points for handicap games. Handicap should be easy enough to find out, but I think we’ll need to hear from an OGS Staff member to learn about Superko. I’ve created a new post asking that singularly specific question. Hopefully someone will respond soon :hugs:

2 Likes