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: 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.

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 ;-)

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.

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

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.)

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.

Hi,
first I thought, there isn't a GO discussion group, but Fencer said I should post here too, so I looked again and found it under "variations of line 4" - I never thought of GO as a "variation of x". GO just is - and other games are just variations of GO! ;-)

To the point now: I've postet a suggestion (http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=3&plla=714945) that is relativly easy to implement and would deal with most problems arising in case of disagreement about dead stones. I know that it dosn't care about all problems, but at least it forces an end to the games. Any comments?