>> I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different answers, >> so I thought I'd check here.
to get a different set of different answers. :) >> Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your >> territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed it (playing four >> stones inside your own territory, thus losing a net three points). If you >> try to pass as well, I stubbornly insist that the stone is alive, thus >> restarting the game. stones on the board aren't counted unless they're dead. your hopeless one stone has neither two eyes nor is a seki, so i can ignore it and we will remove it from my territory after the game is over. in fact, after you place it there, i will pass, unless you've actually caused me some danger by placing it there, in which case i will respond (and the net effect will be that we will each have placed a stone inside my territory, not affecting the outcome of the score so far). if, after we've both passed, you suggest that this clearly dead stone is in fact alive, and that all of its surrounded territory should be counted as yours, i'll point out that it doesn't surround any territory and isn't a seki, so is dead. the stones on the board that are alive dont count toward points in japanese rules, just the territory, so it matters not how many stones are on the board or if you've placed a stone inside my territory, simply that we agree on the life and death status of stones inside what we both agree *is* our territory. right? so imagine instead that you have three dead stones inside my territory and place a fourth, surrounding one point of territory, and i pass, and you place a fifth and create some intensely important ko or seki opportunity for yourself. well, then perhaps i shouldn't have passed. i was being greedy, or cocky, by taking those 3 free points, but after that, i should have been more careful. when i was first learning how to play, i would occasionally drop a stone into my opponent's territory thinking that it counted for something (that i could build life in the hopeless chasm of my opponent's territory). he'd pass. i'd drop another in. he'd pass again. basically, until he responded, i was making moves that didn't provide a real threat to him. it was only after a bit of gentle advice that i realized that i was both giving him free points and annoying the crap out of him. even an opponent who doesn't understand the concept of two eyes or seki could be persuaded according to the "official procedure", which i've never seen anyone need to use in practice. if the putative opponent actually doesn't understand two eyes or seki, playing out on a separate board might be a good way to educate them without ruining the stones-in-play and creating a situation that is well-nigh impossible to undo without convincing your opponent that you're doing something sneaky to the score. of course, you could bore them to tears by writing each move down in the on-the-board after-game sequence so that they could be undone, one at a time, after life or death had been established. superko and bent four in the corner actually do require someone explaining why this is a rule, same as explaining why ko is a rule. ko because it makes the game more fun. superko because of the same thing as ko only over a longer timeframe. bent four because it's a totally crappy situation that is hard to resolve otherwise. in the case of malicious intent, a much simpler option, which i have seen exercised, is for the stronger opponent to resign and watch or start a game with someone else. it's about having fun, after all. s. _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
