How do Japanese rules handle this?

jann · **#161**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X O O O O O | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . O X X X O O O O X O O X Q Q | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . Q | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . Q | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X Q | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

IMO there is zero doubt the bottom/right is also alive both cases. This is not like lightvector's position or torazu3 where there are at least alternatives (in lightvector's case the current ruling is only caused by careless wording, referring to enabled STONES instead of control as mentioned above). Similar variant for example 2:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B example 2 variant - no prisoners, komi -2 $$ +-----------------------------------+ $$ | X X X X X X X . X O O . O X X O O | $$ | X X O X X O X . X . O O O O X . O | $$ | X X O O O O O X X X X X X O X . O | $$ | X X O . O . O O O O O O O X X O O | $$ +-----------------------------------+[/go]

Again the entire right is alive (both W strings). And B won't even dare to capture in real game - this is permanent seki. J89 (and even J2003) have no problem here: attempting to capture either W string would enable or give rise to new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position OC, for these reasons). It doesn't matter if he captures in one move or in two parts (nor have the rule any additional condition on new stones).

And this is not even specific to J89 or the enable rule: example 2 was considered alive and seki even in J1949 (and maybe even before that). J89 changed L/D for a few special cases, but for the most part it only introduced a logical explanation. Alive includes uncapturable stones, capturable but replayable stones, and stones that are not really capturable only exchangeable. Exchanges need to be played out, scoring cannot grant them. Especially cannot score a string as dead while the other side of the exchange (the B string that would be lost) as alive.

Gérard TAILLE · **#162**

jann wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X O O O O O | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . O X X X O O O O X O O X Q Q | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . Q | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . Q | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X Q | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

IMO there is zero doubt that the bottom/right is also alive in both cases. This is not like lightvector's position or torazu3 where there are at least alternatives (in lightvector's case the current ruling is only caused by careless wording, referring to enabled STONES instead of control as mentioned above). A similar variant can be made for example 2:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B example 2 variant - no prisoners, komi -2 $$ +-----------------------------------+ $$ | X X X X X X X . X O O . O X X O O | $$ | X X O X X O X . X . O O O O X . O | $$ | X X O O O O O X X X X X X O X . O | $$ | X X O . O . O O O O O O O X X O O | $$ +-----------------------------------+[/go]

Again the entire right is alive (both W strings). And B won't even dare to capture in real game - this is permanent seki. J89 (and even J2003) has no problems here: attempting to capture either W string would enable or give rise to new stones (compared to the original position OC, for these reasons). It doesn't matter if he captures in one move or in two parts (nor does the rule have any additional condition on new stones).

And this is not even specific to J89 or the enable rule: example 2 was considered alive and seki even in J1949 (and maybe even before that, in traditional go). J89 changed a few special cases wrt L/D, but for the most part it only introduced a logical explanation. Alive includes uncapturable stones, capturable but replayable stones, and stones that are not really capturable only exchangeable. Exchanges need to be played out, scoring cannot grant them. And especially cannot score a string as dead while the other side of the exchange (the B string that would be lost) as alive.

I agree with you Jann, I also consider all groups alive in these diagrams.

BTW I would like to add an argument not related to the rule as it is written but related to my logic as a go player:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . O X X X Q Q Q Q X O O X O O | $$ | X X O O X X X . Q X . O X . O | $$ | X X O . O O X . Q X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X Q X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Let's assume I am quite hesitant for the status of the marked stones in the diagramm above. Though I do not know for sure this status I am sure of the two following points:
1) If the marked stones are captured then the two other white groups at the right are also captured
2) If the marked stones are not cpatured then the two other white groups at the right are also not captured
IOW the marked stones and the two other white groups on the right are strongly tied => for my logic of go player these three groups must have the same status. If not I would have serious doubt concerning the consistency of the rule.

Same remark with your example 2.

CDavis7M · **#163**

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

In Diag1 you consider that the marked stones are dead because they have "no ability to form new uncapturable stones".
But in Diag2 you consider that the marked stones are alive because they have this ability to form new uncapturable stones.
This result is strange for me and I have to work harder in order to really understand.

My view is the following : for a go player looking for the status of a group, the sequence itself is not relevant. What is relevant is the final position reached after the chosen sequence. In this FINAL position the player can look at the captured stones as well as the new uncapturable stones created and decide whether a group of stones is alive or not.

Well, because we are talking about capturable stones then the sequence is relevant. And even if you ignore the sequence, the game mechanics can still recognized from the final board position alone. It should be clear whether which stones were the ones that could create the uncapturable stone. In some diagrams a group of stones is completely separate. In other diagrams they are not. The relation between the stones and the new uncapturable stone can be seen just by looking at the intersections.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Let's call A and B the two unmarked white groups of stones in Diag 1 or 2 and let's call C the white marked group in Diag 1 or 2
In both diagram:
1) the three A, B, C groups are capturable
2) the two A, B groups cannot be simultaneously captured
3) Black can capture A and C but in this case uncapturable stones are created towards B
4) Black can capture B and C but in this case uncapturable stones are created towards A
What difference you see between these two diagrams for a player looking at the status of these groups?

BTW what is the status of the two unmarked white groups in Diag 2 ?

In diagram 1, the capture of C happens by extraneous moves. Playing moves to capture C is similar to as if the player determined L&D in the upper corner and then started to play an atari in a nakade shape in the lower corner. There is no need to do that because L&D status in the upper and lower corners can already be determined. This is the same issue with the 5 stones in diagram previously discussed. Capture of the 5 stones is extraneous. The L&D of the 1 stone is not interdependent on the 5 stones.

In diagram 2, the capture of C is not extraneous. The life of the groups of stones are interdependent. A (or B) cannot be captured because C is reducing the liberties of Black's stones. Contrast to Diagram 1 where the liberties of the seki in the lower right make no difference to the other separate groups of stones.

CDavis7M · **#164**

jann wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ --------------------------------- $$ | . @ X X X O O O O X O O X Q Q | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . Q | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . Q | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X Q | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

IMO there is zero doubt the bottom/right is also alive both cases.

Which portion of the rules provides a basis for this interpretation?
To me, this position looks like a simple combination of Example 1 and Examples 15-18. By the reasoning in Example 1, :ws:

is alive. By the reasoning in Examples 15-18 :wt:

is dead. The fact that :ws:

can form new uncapturable stones only shows that :ws:

is alive. It does not show that :wt:

is alive.
It is the ability of :ws:

to capture the capturing Black stones that allows formation of new stones. The :wt:

are completely out of the picture. They don't contribute anything to :ws:

's formation of the uncapturable stones.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ --------------------------------- $$ | 1 @ X X X O O O O X O O X Q Q-X 2 X X X O O O O X O O X Q Q-5 O X X X O O O O X O O X Q Q | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . Q-X X O O X X X . O X . O X . Q-4 3 O O X X X . O X . O X . Q | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . Q-X X O . O O X . O X . O X . Q-6 . O . O O X . O X . O X . Q | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X Q-O O O O . O X X O X X O X X Q-O O O O . O X X O X X O X X Q | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

----------

jann wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B example 2 variant - no prisoners, komi -2 $$ +-----------------------------------+ $$ | X X X X X X X . X O O . O X X O O | $$ | X X O X X O X . X . @ O O O X . Q | $$ | X X O O O O O X X X X X X O X . O | $$ | X X O . O . O O O O O O O X X O O | $$ +-----------------------------------+[/go]

Again the entire right is alive (both W strings). And B won't even dare to capture in real game - this is permanent seki. J89 (and even J2003) have no problem here: attempting to capture either W string would enable or give rise to new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position OC, for these reasons). It doesn't matter if he captures in one move or in two parts (nor have the rule any additional condition on new stones).

Again, I disagree. This position is like a combination of Example 2 and Example 14. As in Example 2, :ws:

is alive because even though it can be captured it can newly form uncapturable stones. However, as in Example 14, the other White stones are dead without White teire. It doesn't matter whether :ws:

can capture other black stones to form uncapturable stones. What matter is whether :wt:

can form uncapturable stones itself. As in Example 2, :ws:

doesn't need teire. But as in Example 14, :wt:

does. I just follow the Examples.

----------

jann wrote:

And this is not even specific to J89 or the enable rule: example 2 was considered alive and seki even in J1949 (and maybe even before that).

I don't see a position even close to this one mentioned in the 1949 Japanese Go Rules. I only see a different rendition of what is now Example 2. What section are you looking at? Or are you just guessing?

Gérard TAILLE · **#165**

CDavis7M wrote:

jann wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B example 2 variant - no prisoners, komi -2 $$ +-----------------------------------+ $$ | X X X X X X X . X O O . O X X O O | $$ | X X O X X O X . X . @ O O O X . Q | $$ | X X O O O O O X X X X X X O X . O | $$ | X X O . O . O O O O O O O X X O O | $$ +-----------------------------------+[/go]

Again the entire right is alive (both W strings). And B won't even dare to capture in real game - this is permanent seki. J89 (and even J2003) have no problem here: attempting to capture either W string would enable or give rise to new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position OC, for these reasons). It doesn't matter if he captures in one move or in two parts (nor have the rule any additional condition on new stones).

Again, I disagree. This position is like a combination of Example 2 and Example 14. As in Example 2, :ws:

is alive because even though it can be captured it can newly form uncapturable stones. However, as in Example 14, the other White stones are dead without White teire. It doesn't matter whether :ws:

can capture other black stones to form uncapturable stones. What matter is whether :wt:

can form uncapturable stones itself. As in Example 2, :ws:

doesn't need teire. But as in Example 14, :wt:

does. I just follow the Examples.

I understand you consider the white stones at the right are dead. Does that mean that black has 14 points (territory + prisonners) on the right side ?

CDavis7M · **#166**

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Does that mean that black has 14 points (territory + prisoners) on the right side ?

Yes but no because White will play teire so it's seki.

It seems that Black is entitled to take the throw-in as a prisoner.

Cassandra · **#167**

CDavis7M wrote:

... White will play teire so it's seki.

White will NOT play teire to lose the game!!!

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Attached temporary seki do not have any value (with regard to L&D status) on their own.
This is due to the "collapse of the seki".

If the so far seki-dissolving-preventing group (that has become captured, of course) is assessed "alive", the same-coloured groups in the temporary seki must be also "alive".
The same dependence applies, if the seki-dissolving-preventing group is assessed "dead".

L&D Example 14 addresses solely and exclusively the starting party for status assessment (which is Black for White's group there).
No teire would be needed, if Black had to prove that he controls the disputed area, even if White plays first (this is the usual issue with the one-move difference of these concepts).

Gérard TAILLE · **#168**

CDavis7M wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Does that mean that black has 14 points (territory + prisoners) on the right side ?

Yes but no because White will play teire so it's seki.

It seems that Black is entitled to take the throw-in as a prisoner.

I think I begin to understand your point and i will show you what hurts me:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Black to play, no komi, no prisoners $$ +---------------------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X O X X . O O | $$ | X X O O O O O O X X . O O | $$ | . O X X X X X X O X O O O | $$ | . O X . X X X X O X O O O | $$ | X O X X . X X X O X X X X | $$ | X O X X X X X X O O O O X | $$ | X O X X X X O O O O O O O | $$ | O O X X X X O . . . . . . | $$ | X X O O O O O . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X O O . . . . . . | $$ | O O O O X O O . . . . . . | $$ | O O O O X X O . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------+[/go]

As a go player I expect the game will continue with:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------+ $$ | . X 1 2 X X X O X X . O O | $$ | X X O O O O O O X X . O O | $$ | . O X X X X X X O X O O O | $$ | . O X . X X X X O X O O O | $$ | X O X X . X X X O X X X X | $$ | X O X X X X X X O O O O X | $$ | X O X X X X O O O O O O O | $$ | O O X X X X O . . . . . . | $$ | X X O O O O O . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X O O . . . . . . | $$ | O O O O X O O . . . . . . | $$ | O O O O X X O . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------+ $$ | . X X O 5 3 . O X X . O O | $$ | X X O O O O O O X X . O O | $$ | . O X X X X X X O X O O O | $$ | 4 O X . X X X X O X O O O | $$ | X O X X . X X X O X X X X | $$ | X O X X X X X X O O O O X | $$ | X O X X X X O O O O O O O | $$ | O O X X X X O . . . . . . | $$ | X X O O O O O . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X O O . . . . . . | $$ | O O O O X O O . . . . . . | $$ | O O O O X X O . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------------------+ $$ | . X X O X X 7 O X X . O O | $$ | X X O O O O O O X X . O O | $$ | 6 O X X X X X X O X O O O | $$ | O O X . X X X X O X O O O | $$ | . O X X . X X X O X X X X | $$ | 8 O X X X X X X O O O O X | $$ | . O X X X X O O O O O O O | $$ | O O X X X X O . . . . . . | $$ | X X O O O O O . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . O O X O O . . . . . . | $$ | O O O O X O O . . . . . . | $$ | O O O O X X O . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------+[/go]

and white wins the game by 3 points.

What happens with your approach?
Instead of playing the sequence above black simply passes and the game stops there. Very bad surprise for white : black claims that the white groups in the upper right corner and in the bottom left corner are dead and black wins the game by 10 points!
How can white accept this result seeing these two groups cannot be captured sinultaneously?

CDavis7M · **#169**

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Very bad surprise for white : black claims that the white groups in the upper right corner and in the bottom left corner are dead.

Is the concern that Black can cannot capture the White stones in the lower lower during the game (as you showed) but the White are considered dead in L&D Confirmation? Do you have this same concern for a triple ko where one side has eyes and the other doesn't? Or seki-by-hane? The Japanese Rules had many examples where stones cannot be captured during the game but are deemed dead.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

How can white accept this result seeing these two groups cannot be captured sinultaneously?

White should accept that their stones in the upper are weaker and less-able than Black's stones. Black can initiate and capture a portion of the stones. White cannot initiate. Weaker stones having a poorer status seems correct.

And the situation is contrived -- White would not play this way if they knew.

Gérard TAILLE · **#170**

CDavis7M wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Very bad surprise for white : black claims that the white groups in the upper right corner and in the bottom left corner are dead.

Is the concern that Black can cannot capture the White stones in the lower lower during the game (as you showed) but the White are considered dead in L&D Confirmation? Do you have this same concern for a triple ko where one side has eyes and the other doesn't? Or seki-by-hane? The Japanese Rules had many examples where stones cannot be captured during the game but are deemed dead.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

How can white accept this result seeing these two groups cannot be captured sinultaneously?

White should accept that their stones in the upper are weaker and less-able than Black's stones. Black can initiate and capture a portion of the stones. White cannot initiate. Weaker stones having a poorer status seems correct.

And the situation is contrived -- White would not play this way if they knew.

I know that a group can be considered dead though not capturable in normal play. Maybe the simpiest case is the following :

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | ------------------------------------- $$ | . X O . O . O a O O . O X . X . Q X | $$ | X X O O O O O O X O O X X X X Q Q X | $$ | . X X X X X X X X X X Q Q Q Q Q . X | $$ | -------------------------------------[/go]

The marked white stones cannot be captured in normal play, but under hypothetical play black can capture these stones by the help of the pass-for-ko rule. As a go player I consider it is a pity but it is acceptable beacause the final result is a seki (here really an anti-seki).

My point with the following position is completly different:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Black to play, no komi, no prisoners $$ +---------------------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X O X X . Q Q | $$ | X X O O O O O O X X . Q Q | $$ | . O X X X X X X O X Q Q Q | $$ | . O X . X X X X O X Q Q Q | $$ | X O X X . X X X O X X X X | $$ | X O X X X X X X O O O O X | $$ | X O X X X X O O O O O O O | $$ | O O X X X X O . . . . . . | $$ | X X O O O O O . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . Q Q X O O . . . . . . | $$ | Q Q Q Q X O O . . . . . . | $$ | Q Q Q Q X X O . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------+[/go]

First of all a group of stones may have really different status:
1) it may be capturable in normal play
2) it may be capturable in hypothetical play
3) it may be dead (I mean not alive according to the confirmation phase)
4) it may be prisoners (I mean the group is dead and the group is in the opponent territory according to article 8)

In my example just above you consider the two white marked groups not only dead but even prisoners. In addition we are in a quite simple situation because there no issue with pass-for-ko.
Maybe I am wrong but in this kind of position it looks to me inconsistant to see two (or more) groups of stones which are prisoners that could not be capturable SIMULTANEOUSLY in normal play.
Can you show us another (known?) example?

BTW does anybody have the opportunity to ask a japanese professional player what is the result of the game beginning with this position?

kvasir · **#171**

Is there still a latent connection to the original subject of this thread?

Showing some position and claiming something (that may be wrong) about the J89 life and death status of different strings is one thing but the connection to the original subject is quickly becoming a mystery.

CDavis7M · **#172**

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Maybe I am wrong but in this kind of position it looks to me inconsistant to see two (or more) groups of stones which are prisoners that could not be capturable SIMULTANEOUSLY in normal play.

It's not that the Japanese Rules are inconsistent with respect to this position, it's that the position is inconsistent with respect to the Japanese Rules. The entire point of the Japanese Rules is to allow the players to leave the game in an unfinished state as form of art, complementing the art of the game. The fact that a completely unrealistic position might have some apparent inconsistency in scoring rules. First this position would never happen in Japanese Go. And second, the position would never happen given the scoring rules. It is no wonder to me that rules designed for artistic purposes might have some apparent inconsistencies in non artistic positions.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Can you show us another (known?) example?

Instead, I'll show you an example of how capturable stones can be deemed alive because an uncapturable stones can be played with a different group of stones. Under some reasoning, :wt:

is considered alive because even though :wt:

can be captured, :w2:

is uncapturable. There is no difference between this silly situation and some of the ones presented above. This shows why this understanding is not correct.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ ------------------ $$ | X O O O . . 2 . .| $$ | X X O . O O O O .| $$ | . X X O O . . O O| $$ | . . X X X O O X X| $$ | . . X O O O X . X| $$ | . X X X O X X X 1| $$ | X . X O O X Q Q Q| $$ | X X O . O X Q X X| $$ | O O O O O X X . .| $$ ------------------[/go]

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

BTW does anybody have the opportunity to ask a japanese professional player what is the result of the game beginning with this position?

The various Asian rule sets are all good enough to work in almost all of the cases, and I think they focus on functioning and being relatively easy to understand, with the idea of a referee being there to judge just in case something unusual comes up. This is an advantage in showing how to do it in an intuitive and easy to understand fashion, while there are potential weaknesses if we assume that people will try to "break" the rule set with unusual cases. There are some people in the west who don't like that.

How do Japanese rules handle this?

Who is online