heyo: (copied from Feature requests board) "My suggestion to handle this: after the game has ended and players don't agree about dead stones both are forced to place at least one stone befor they may pass again. A player who can't legaly place a stone looses the game.
This may lead to a new problem if the game's ending is slightly in favor for white (only by komi), but would solve the problem that by the rules as they are now nobody can ever win a game of GO if the opponent doesn't agree."

I like the idea of forcing each player to place a stone before they can pass again. That's consistent with Go etiquette. If the players don't agree on dead stones, they should play it out.

I don't like the second part: "A player who can't legally place a stone loses the game." If the player with fewer points is in a position where he would end up placing the last stone, he can force a win for himself by just continuing to play.

kaluza: If the player with fewer points is in a position where he would end up placing the last stone, he can force a win for himself by just continuing to play.

The player with more points (on the board) has more opportunities to place stones in his own territory than the player with less points, so he should win the game anyhow.
There are other weaknesses that have to be discussed:
First, as I already mentioned, white may have fewer points on the board but may be leading by komi
Second: the player with more groups is in a disadvantage because he has maintain 2 liberties (eyes) for every group.

But then, in games where the outcome is so close it is unlikely players don't agree on dead stones.
The feature request was targeted at games where the (clear) looser could hinder the winner of taking his victory by just not agreeing to the dead stones.

heyo: I apologize for the lateness of my reply.

The player with more points (on the board) has more opportunities to place stones in his own territory than the player with less points, so he should win the game anyhow.

That may be true, but it changes the strategy of the game. You would have to switch from surrounding territory to trying not to play the last stone, and then you're not really playing Go anymore.

First, as I already mentioned, white may have fewer points on the board but may be leading by komi

That doesn't matter. If white has fewer points on the board but leads by komi, then he wins. Period. That's how the komi rule works.

Second: the player with more groups is in a disadvantage because he has maintain 2 liberties (eyes) for every group.

That's a good point. If players are forced to move, they may be forced to fill in their own eyes, and that would change the status of the game.

kaluza: That's a good point. If players are forced to move, they may be forced to fill in their own eyes, and that would change the status of the game.

That's exacly the point to the other things a mentioned. The player with more points on the board just waits until the player with less points has to fill his his eyes and thus takes the whole bard eventually.
It holds also true if black has just one or two more points (so white would win by komi). Black could wait 'till white has to fill his eyes.

I suggest the following:

Keep the first rule:

1. If both players pass consecutively, then they cannot pass again until each player has placed one more stone on the board.

And add this rule:

2. If a player has no legal move or if his only legal move is to place a stone inside his own uncontested territory (that is, in territory surrounded by his own stones and which does not contain any stones of the opposite color), then the game is ended and whoever has more points is declared the winner. All stones on the board are counted as alive (this isn't right, but it will make the programming easier for Fencer ;-)

These rules would force an end to the game. I don't think they would lead to a change in strategy. And players would not be forced to fill in their own eyes. What do you think?

kaluza: 2. If a player has no legal move or if his only legal move is to place a stone inside his own uncontested territory (that is, in territory surrounded by his own stones and which does not contain any stones of the opposite color), then the game is ended and whoever has more points is declared the winner. All stones on the board are counted as alive (this isn't right, but it will make the programming easier for Fencer ;-)

wouldn't work :-( The loosing player will run out of moves very quickly but may still have dead stones in his opponents territory. Since these stone will count for him he'll win. e.g. 5x5 X=black O=white
white wins by 2 points

.o .ox
oooox
xxxxx
o .x. o
ooxoo

What obout this set of rules?

If after the end of the game (two consecutive passes) the players don't agree on dead stones, the game continues. A player may place a stone or may pass but if he passes it costs one point. If both players pass again consecutive all stones are treated as alive and the score is computed.

This will handel all problems we thought of up 'till now. No one is forced to fill his eyes, no one looses points taking out dead stones (since the pass of his opponet is equaly worth -1 point as his placing a stone in his own territory), winning by just komi will not be touched.
And the existence of the rule makes it less likely that it ever has to be caried out ;-)

heyo: This "pass stone" is essentially the Chinese scoring system, which others have suggested in this DB before.
Chinese scoring actually fixes several nagging issues encountered on this site with the Japanese scoring, mainly dealing with people who don't understand scoring completely.

jurek:

another vote for Chinese scoring!

heyo: If both players pass again consecutive all stones are treated as alive and the score is computed.

No idea can be posted without it being shot down. :-)
One problem with this rule is that novice players often mark dead stones incorrectly because they don't understand how to do it. The first time this rule was used against them, a lot of them would just give up.

Also, there are tricky positions that are difficult to figure out. These would require some discussion between the players and possibly multiple attempts to mark the stones.

kaluza: A good way for Westerners to learn go scoring is to play more. Through trial and error, we learn.

There is very good advice posted on the go fellowship's main page. It states to beginners to "lose your first 100 games quickly." I love that simple statement, because it says so much.

I think most competitors in go play with Japanese scoring. We should learn that because it is most widely used. It might be a little difficult for beginners to grasp, but hindsight will prove to any beginner that the scoring is so obvious, so simple to grasp. Experience is what is required. I doubt if using a different method of scoring will help begiinners. That is just my opinion. Check out the sensei's library if you haven't already.

kaluza: Also, there are tricky positions that are difficult to figure out. These would require some discussion between the players and possibly multiple attempts to mark the stones.

There is a message system build into BrainKing, so players can discuss the status of the groups. If it is dificult to decide the best way would be to play it out. As for beginners who need multiple attempts to mark dead stones: I haven't thought of that an I guess that isn't such a big problem. If all dead stones are removed in the (after-)game it just vanishes, since there are no dead stones to mark.

And I think that any set of rules that leads to an end is better than the current ruleset. If you pull a stubborn opponent who just doesn't want to loose, even with no more stones on the board you can do nothing - except calling Fencer to end that game or resign.

heyo: I agree that the system is flawed, and the unsportsmanlike players who refuse to admit that they've lost are very annoying. But I would oppose any change in the rules that turns the game into something that is not traditional Go. I don't want to play something like Go. I want to play Go.

I don't have a big problem with the rules the way they work now. The playing of Go requires a certain amount of courtesy. And the current rules force players to learn courtesy and sportsmanship.

Occasionally, this means asking Fencer to end a game. I'm sure this annoys Fencer, but he's been doing it for a while, so it can't be that bad. Previously on this board, it has been suggested that some members be appointed to adjudicate disputed games. I still think this is the best solution.

kaluza: Kaluza. I'm having blue martinis and you sound like you are understanding the mature esthetic of go. Patience enhances experience.

emmett: And experience enhances patience :)

kaluza: I don't have a big problem with the rules the way they work now. The playing of Go requires a certain amount of courtesy. And the current rules force players to learn courtesy and sportsmanship.

Occasionally, this means asking Fencer to end a game. I'm sure this annoys Fencer, but he's been doing it for a while, so it can't be that bad. Previously on this board, it has been suggested that some members be appointed to adjudicate disputed games. I still think this is the best solution.
OK. I rest my case.
After all it is Fencers work to do, both, to implement new rules or to end games of unsportsmanlike players. I think this discussion did help him and I'm sure he'll know what to do (or don't do) with it. Thanks to all who contributed.

kaluza: I don't like the second part: "A player who can't legally place a stone loses the game." If the player with fewer points is in a position where he would end up placing the last stone, he can force a win for himself by just continuing to play.

There may be another way to solve that problem:
If players don't agree on dead stones, they should play until no more dead stones are on the board. Passing is allowed but stones are counted as territory. (So passing gives you no advantage while your opponent fills up his own territory taking away dead stones.)

heyo: There may be another way to solve that problem:
If players don't agree on dead stones, they should play until no more dead stones are on the board. Passing is allowed but stones are counted as territory. (So passing gives you no advantage while your opponent fills up his own territory taking away dead stones.)

That's the Chinese method of scoring, also called area scoring. Brainking uses territory scoring, which is the Japanese method. I think it would be interesting if BrainKing added Go with Chinese scoring as a variant. But it would be nice to find a way to make Japanese scoring work.