jann wrote:
But the above four examples are different. Any average player can discuss hypothetical play and score all four correctly - only the official rules can't.
Any amateur Kyu player with a solid knowledge of Igo Hatsuyôron 120's interdependencies can solve that tsume-go, correct play in subvariations included. No AI on this planet can.
The attitude that your artificially designed tsume-go for rulesets have in common is simply a destructive one.
As I have proven here, no one of your tsume-go for rulesets creators is able to solve the reverse tsume-go (show the last seven moves before that position) for the created positions, which makes evident that these to not have the slightest connection to the real world on the Go board.
You all are simply looking for a ruleset that "heals" a very special kind of simple obvious mistakes from "play" during the status confirmation.
You think that you have found a weakness and you use all your energy in search of a "suitable" position. But this weakness does NOT exist IN that ruleset, but only in your comparison of this rulesets with others. One of which YOU assess to be perfect.
But you do not want to play games under that seemingly "perfect" ruleset only.
AI is designed to play real games.
No software developer on this planet would make the requirements for successfully treating Igo Hatsuyôron 120 the foundation of their program.
_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever:
https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htmIgo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)