The "Igo Kempo Soan" (Draft Constitution of Go) published in 1932 by Yasunaga in Kido was a very valuable first step toward the formulation of the rules of go. The studies of the rules contained in Shimada's book on the mathematics of go.*1 are essential reading for any student of the rules of go. Of particular value in this book is the discussion of "The Rationalization of Go" by two Americans, John M. H. Olmsted and Karl Davis Robinson. Also worthy of great attention are the proposals made by the go rules theorist Kaise (of which I have only the version printed in the Hayashi's Go Encyclopedia).

This outstanding group of specialists set to work on the Japanese rules and produced a proposed revision in 1963, which was then further revised and published in the December 1964 issue of Kido. We will get to this later. The Nihon Kiin has not yet formally adopted this revision.*2

In initial formulations of the rules the greatest weight was laid on defining life and death, but as the difficulty of this gradually became apparent, there has been a gradual shift in the direction of formulating the rules without defining life and death. You can see this shift clearly by comparing the original and revised editions of Shimada's book. Continuing from the excellent work of my predecessors, I would like to discuss the problems of the rules of go and make my own suggestions.

*1

Shimada Takuji, Igo no Suri, published in 1943 by Kawade Shobo, revised edition published in 1958 by Maki Shoten.

*2

The first proposed revision, published in the December 1963 issue of Kido, was rejected at a General Meeting of the Nihon Kiin. The 1964 revision and other revisions drafted by this committee were never acted on.

In 1989 the Nihon Kiin and Kansai Kiin adopted a new, concise set of rules, largely the work of Sakai Takeshi (9 dan). The new Japanese Rules of Go dispense with most of the content of the 1949 Laws. One of their main features is a general rule that gives the same results as the precedents in the 1949 Laws, thus showing that there was in fact some logic behind the traditional Japanese rules.

(The new rule is that in analyzing life and death after the game is finished, the players must assume that once a ko is taken it can never be recaptured, unless the player first passes and indicates the ko he intends to recapture. This has the effect of decoupling different life-and-death questions and forcing each one to be considered independently.)