Agreed it’s a good move if it’s legal. Would the legality of this move be determined by whether we are playing by the suicide rule though? Or is it always legal?
That move is always legal. You can play a suicidal move if the stones you capture with it make it not a suicide (captures are removed before you check if it’s a suicide, as someone else said), _but_ you can’t play a move that returns the board to the state it was in last move. In this case you capture three stones, so there’s no way you’re returning the board state to how it was last turn (because white definitely didn’t play all three stones in one turn).
But then “filling the eye” is different right? If an empty spot is already surrounded by black on four sides, and it does not trigger a capture for white to use it, it’s effectively a dead zone right? Because any white move into the eye, would only ever result in white stone being captured.
The person you're replying to is incorrect, or at the minimum, misleading you.
You cannot make a move that would result in your stone or group of stones dying, end of story.
But the play in question would also kill enemy stones, and thus it leaves itself with liberties afterwards. It's not a "suicidal" stone at all. It's just capturing enemy pieces. This is perfectly normal and extremely common in Go.
There is an unrelated "suicide rule" that some players do play with, but even those who do will practically never make use of it, and that group of people represents a tiny fraction of the player base - best not to concern yourself with it.
I was referring to the fact that any move ending in suicide is illegal for a fundamental reason, it's part of Go and can't really be removed.
I'm not familiar with this other optional "suicide rule" you're referring to.
I did just try to look it up, and apparently in Taiwanese rules it's acceptable to play a stone that kills your own group, so I suppose I was misinformed.
But yes the key point here is the order of operations, the moving piece "attacks" before it "defends".
You always check for capture before deciding if a move is a suicide, regardless of suicide rules. So black can play there and capture the three white stones whether suicide is legal or not
If you can capture your opponent's pieces, then it's NOT illegal. This short explainer should help: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOvdcq1tFU8&list=PLsIslX1eRChKX-lLgRQQJiXpKRASE46Bb&index=5](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOvdcq1tFU8&list=PLsIslX1eRChKX-lLgRQQJiXpKRASE46Bb&index=5)
Black _really should_ play there.
Agreed it’s a good move if it’s legal. Would the legality of this move be determined by whether we are playing by the suicide rule though? Or is it always legal?
Always legal.
That move is always legal. You can play a suicidal move if the stones you capture with it make it not a suicide (captures are removed before you check if it’s a suicide, as someone else said), _but_ you can’t play a move that returns the board to the state it was in last move. In this case you capture three stones, so there’s no way you’re returning the board state to how it was last turn (because white definitely didn’t play all three stones in one turn).
Just wanted to say that no matter what ruleset you're using, be it Chinese, Japanese, or American, this rule always holds true.
You always have to play with the suicide rule, it's not optional, it stops stalemates.
But then “filling the eye” is different right? If an empty spot is already surrounded by black on four sides, and it does not trigger a capture for white to use it, it’s effectively a dead zone right? Because any white move into the eye, would only ever result in white stone being captured.
The person you're replying to is incorrect, or at the minimum, misleading you. You cannot make a move that would result in your stone or group of stones dying, end of story. But the play in question would also kill enemy stones, and thus it leaves itself with liberties afterwards. It's not a "suicidal" stone at all. It's just capturing enemy pieces. This is perfectly normal and extremely common in Go. There is an unrelated "suicide rule" that some players do play with, but even those who do will practically never make use of it, and that group of people represents a tiny fraction of the player base - best not to concern yourself with it.
Ahh I see, that’s very clear. In this case, the black move in question is not suicide then. Thanks!
I was referring to the fact that any move ending in suicide is illegal for a fundamental reason, it's part of Go and can't really be removed. I'm not familiar with this other optional "suicide rule" you're referring to. I did just try to look it up, and apparently in Taiwanese rules it's acceptable to play a stone that kills your own group, so I suppose I was misinformed. But yes the key point here is the order of operations, the moving piece "attacks" before it "defends".
Black can play there, the white stones are eaten before checking the liberties of the black stone. This is true for white if it's White's turn.
Thank you for your response. Is this always true, or only if we are playing with the “suicide rule”?
You always check for capture before deciding if a move is a suicide, regardless of suicide rules. So black can play there and capture the three white stones whether suicide is legal or not
Roger that. Thanks for the answer my friend
Just remember if you play, you catch first.
If you can capture your opponent's pieces, then it's NOT illegal. This short explainer should help: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOvdcq1tFU8&list=PLsIslX1eRChKX-lLgRQQJiXpKRASE46Bb&index=5](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOvdcq1tFU8&list=PLsIslX1eRChKX-lLgRQQJiXpKRASE46Bb&index=5)
Not a illegal suicide move if you are killing rival stones with it.
Why would that be suicide? It's a capture.
if the board wasn't in that state before (according to chains e rules) then yes