is a stone that is played AFTER White's alive single stone has been captured.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------------------
$$ | ? ? ? ? X X C C O O . O
$$ | ? ? ? ? X C C O O O O O
$$ | X X X X O C O O . O . .
$$ | X . X X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I am afraid that ALL points in the relevant area -- which could be taken by White -- can be considered being / becoming part of an already alive group of hers.

Five points are marked. I am sure that you know that at least eight stones are needed to create an independently alive group at the edge of the board.
I do not have any idea how you intend establishing ONE PERMANENT stone on the board that is INDEPENDENTLY alive on its own.

However, this does not matter at all, as e.g. L&D Example 1 clearly demonstrates.

All that J89 demands for proving "being alive" for a capturable stone is to establish a permanant stone on the board (in my opinion AFTER this capture) that would not have been played there in the case the capturable stone had not been captured.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ----------------------
$$ | . X X O . .
$$ | Q X X O . .
$$ | X O O O . .
$$ | X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

I presented my view on this position in the post https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=267413#p267413.
I agree with the conclusion given by Jann in the following post https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=267416#p267416 : in contradiction with what is said in example 1 of the rule I consider that the marked white stone is dead but as explained in the posts mentionned that does not change the final conclusion : the position is unfinished and white has to continue the game.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ----------------------
$$ | O . O . X a b O O . O
$$ | O O O X O X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O . O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I think I am making some (small?) progress in understanding your view.
I agree that, when looking at the status of the five white stones, a white stone at "a" or "b" has not to be considered as a new uncapturable stone.
Now I do not understand why a white stone at "a" (or "b") could be considered as a new uncapturable stone when looking at the status of the group of 1 white stone.
For me, in any case (I mean even if it is black to play first), black cannot prevent white to put a permanent stone on "a" (or "b") => in any case, stones on "a" or b" are simply connected stones to the group with 2 eyes and not new permanent stones.

If you agree on this point then I agree (only temporarily because other arguments exist) that the group of 1 stone is alive while the group of 5 stones is dead.

Now example 1 is incorrect because if it was correct it is exactly like I said, it is not necessary that the new stones couldn't have been played? It is fictitious to claim white has to continue the game and play what black dictates.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | ? ? ? O . .
$$ | ? ? ? O . .
$$ | X O O O . .
$$ | X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

The disputed area (shadowed) in the corner only includes SIX board points.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to establish a group therein that is INDEPENDENTLY alive on its own.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | ? ? ? O . .
$$ | Y ? ? O . .
$$ | B O O O . .
$$ | B B B . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

It should be clear that it is mandatory for any "new" permanent Black stone to be connected with Black's already alive group.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | Y ? ? O . .
$$ | B ? ? O . .
$$ | B O O O . .
$$ | B B B . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

... and so on ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | ? ? Q W . .
$$ | ? ? ? W . .
$$ | X W W W . .
$$ | X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

The same is true for any "new" permanent White stone in relation to White's already alive group.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | ? Q W W . .
$$ | ? ? ? W . .
$$ | X W W W . .
$$ | X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

... and so on ...

The only decisive question is whether these stones would have been played if nothing had been captured before.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Here is an old example I originally posted as a test for Gérard. It also seems relevant for the enable rule and its aspiring reinventions:

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 O O O X |
$$ | X O X O O . X |
$$ | X O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X O O O . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

In J89 (and Japanese-style rules in general, including Jasiek's J2003 afais) all strings are alive, seki with no territory. The traditional enable interpretation understands this (no string can be captured without enabling new uncapturable stones).

And another seki (variant of example 5) for both timing-based ideas and any non-complete enable idea:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------
$$ | . O X X X O O O O X O O X O O |
$$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O |
$$ ---------------------------------[/go]

These examples show why the traditional enable rule is worded as is, and works as does. It is essential for the rules to detect ANY kind of negative consequence attached to the capture in ANY kind of causal relationship. Restricting this in any way would be suicidal and almost certainly fail in some examples.

About single stone in torazu3 (kvasir and Gérard, maybe even Cassandra): it is dead under the traditional interpretation (since capturing it wouldn't enable anything), but this may be debatable under another, even less restricted interpretation. For example, it could become alive if the rule would be changed from "capturing them would enable" to "capturing them would involve" (which may be kvasir's direction), but it looks hard to find a usable algorithm for the latter due to lack of definite meaning and logical substance (and things like onesided dame).


You seem to talk about your own ideas (and not J89 anymore). This is fine, but as others pointed out you use some vague phrases without definition, which makes your ideas unverifiable (and hard to comment on). IMO this is also why you yourself don't notice their lurking contradictions. And you are wrong on example 4: both W strings are alive (separately, as L/D always works string-by-string) on enable.

Well, it does need explanation why playing 'new stones' on some points counts as 'enabling' and others not. It is not reinventing anything when we discuss that the points are different.

You never explain what your "traditional" interpretation actually is. You were cited (by Gerard) as having the anti-traditional view that new stones don't count if they could have been played anyway, something that would break your second example just as it would break example 1 and 5. You completely contradict yourself in your post, first claiming the 1 stone is alive and then dead. What is up with that? Why is example 1 different from example 5, how do you justify the anti-traditional view that the 1 stone is dead in example 1 but then alive example 5? How do you determine which examples are correct and which example are wrong?

Can you give a complete list of which examples are correct in this (anti-?)traditional view that rejects parts of the original rules text as incorrect? Again, why is example 1 incorrect and why is example 5 correct?

I think I did above (around "the advantage of the straightforward/traditional interpretation"), but to make it clear:

"Capturing a string WOULD ENABLE" the opponent to play a new uncapturable stone if:

• the new stone cannot be played vs resistance in the original position
  (proving that it was ENABLED or made possible in the course of the capture)
• the string is not capturable without the new stone getting played
  (proving that capturing it WOULD indeed necessarily enable the stone)

The advantage, as mentioned above, is that both points can actually be proven/disproven by hypothetical sequences. (I doubt this is "mine" btw, it was already around decades ago iirc.)


Where did I wrote that the 1 stone is alive, could you link or quote that? Anyway, I don't think it is, IMO it is dead, and this is a minor oversight in the commentary.

But in example 5 (and its variant), even though the 1 stone is dead again, this doesn't matter much since the interesting point is the life of W rightside stones. And when those strings are analyzed, B cannot capture anything on the right without giving up the torazu3 corner completely, all intersections, and in that case there will be some new stones there that W couldn't have played originally.

I doubt that this is true.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X 1 2 X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X O O . X |
$$ | X O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X O O O . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X X O . 3 . |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | 4 O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X O O . X |
$$ | X O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X O O O . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X X O 7 X 5 |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | 6 O X X X X X |
$$ | O O X O O O X |
$$ | . O X O O . X |
$$ | . O X O O O X |
$$ | . O X O O O . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wm8 pass; pass
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X X . X X X |
$$ | X X . . . . . |
$$ | O O X X X X X |
$$ | O O X O O O X |
$$ | . O X O O 2 X |
$$ | 1 O X O O O X |
$$ | . O X O O O 4 |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wm8 pass; pass
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X X . X X X |
$$ | X X . . . . . |
$$ | O O X X X X X |
$$ | O O X . . . X |
$$ | . O X . . X X |
$$ | O O X . . . X |
$$ | . O X . . . X |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

No chance for White to play any additional permanent stone after her group in the lower right has been taken off the board.

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

But there is no need to discuss this position that will never reach the game's end, as Black will capture one of White's groups at the top / the left anyway, knowing L&D Example 4 alone.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Let's take this famous 7.1 article:

1. Stones are said to be "alive" if they cannot be captured by the opponent, or if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture. Stones which are not alive are said to be "dead."

We all know that it is quite impossible to have a common understanding of the wording "enable a new stone". Maybe the translation of the japanese text is not perfect but the result is here: nobody can claim to have the correct understanding.

In this context I would try to give you for comment MY own interpretation.
Let's assume I would like to know if a given group of white stones are alive or dead. I need first to know if these stones are capturable which seems easy to understand (but maybe not easy to prove). I need also to know if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture. To resolve such problem I have to define clearly where are the set of intersections which are candidate to receive a new uncapturable stone.
My first idea was the following:

All intersections for which white can prove, with black to play, she can put a permanent uncapturable "stone" cannot be candidate to be a new white stone. All other intersections can be candidate to be a new white stone.

It sounded perfect for me but the word "stone" cause difficulties in the following case:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -----------------
$$ | a b O . O X . .
$$ | O O O O O X . .
$$ | X X X X X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

What is the issue? I do not want to consider that a white move at "a" (or "b") create a new stone but I cannot prove that white can put on this intersection a permanent uncapturable stone because black can herself play a move at "a" and white will not be able in future to put a permanent uncapturable stone on this intersection.
How solving such issue?
My proposal is very simple: by extension, any empty intersection surrounded by permanent uncapturable stones is also considered a permanent uncapturable "stone"

With this extension my above proposal (bold text) satisfies myself.

Let's take examples:

Example 1 of the rule

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | . X X O . .
$$ | Q X X O . .
$$ | X O O O . .
$$ | X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

What is the status of the white marked stone?

To answer this question I need to identify which intersections could not be candidate being a new uncapturable stone.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | . B B W . .
$$ | O X B W . .
$$ | X W W W . .
$$ | X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

In this exemple the circle intersections are the intersections that cannot be candidate to be a new white stone.
Black can capture the stone without allowing white to create a new uncapturable stone => the white marked stone is dead.

Example 5 of the rule

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | . Q X X . O X . .
$$ | X X O X . O X . .
$$ | X X O X X O X . .
$$ | O O O O O X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

What is the status of the white marked stone?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | . O X X . O X . .
$$ | B X W X . O X . .
$$ | B B W X X O X . .
$$ | W W W W W X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

In this exemple the circle intersections are the intersections that cannot be candidate to be a new white stone.

Can black capture the marked stone without creating a new white uncapturable stone?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | 1 Q X X . O X . .
$$ | X X O X . O X . .
$$ | X X O X X O X . .
$$ | O O O O O X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | X 2 X X . O X . .
$$ | X X O X . O X . .
$$ | X X O X X O X . .
$$ | O O O O O X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | 4 O X X . O X . .
$$ | 5 3 O X . O X . .
$$ | . . O X X O X . .
$$ | O O O O O X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | 7 6 X X . O X . .
$$ | X X O X . O X . .
$$ | . 8 O X X O X . .
$$ | O O O O O X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

and the position reached is the following

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | X a X X c O X . .
$$ | X X O X . O X . .
$$ | b O O X X O X . .
$$ | O O O O O X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

and now
1) If black plays at "a" then white plays at "b" creating new uncapturable stones with the group of 3 stones in seki
2) If black plays at "c" then white plays at "b" and will be able to play then at "a" creating a new uncapturable stone.
In any case black cannot capture the initial white marked stone and avoiding the creation of a new uncapturable stone => the white marked stone is alive.

I am completly open to discuss any other interpretation of the rule based on examples.

I am aware of your "new stones AFTER the capturing move" idea, but such condition doesn't exist imo, and would fail in both of these last examples (even more in the second one!).

You are interested in the L/D in the original stopped/scoring position, not L/D in a later one. And to say that a string is/was dead in the stopped position, B needs to show a sequence that captures it, starting from that position, and without enabling uncapturable stones in the process. It doesn't matter if those stones are played early or late.


"Was it possible?" would start with W, so for this kind of trick you need something like this:
(Iirc this was discussed somewhere very long time ago...)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -----------------
$$ | . X X O . O X . .
$$ | O O O O O O X . .
$$ | X X X X X X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

It doesn't look clear what you meant here. Maybe that the 3 stones TURNED uncapturable now? But the rule quite firmly talks about new plays.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | . X O O . O
$$ | P X O . O O
$$ | X O O O O .
$$ | X X X X . .
$$ | . X . X . .
$$ | X X X X . .[/go]

is dead???

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

This obviously bugs a lot of people, so let me try to offer a translation that follows the Japanese as closely as possible in every respect - vocabulary, grammar, syntax, order or whatever. No attempt at interpretation.

It's strictly impossible, because the Japanese passive and passive potential overlap (and, as a possible point of interest many Japanese don't understand or use the passive potential in the same way that Tokyo-ites do: they make distinctions between "physically can" and "can with permission" and so on - much as native English speakers use 'may' in various conflicting ways depending on area).

I think we can ignore that, but the Japanese disinclination to distinguish between singular and plural is definite problem. To get round that, I will use the word 'stones' to mean a collection of one or more stones that can be considered connected or connectable to each other. It is not being used in any fancy mathematical way, but it is being used to refer to stones in either a singular or plural sense. Context is important. The associated diagrams in the J89 Rules show that 'stones' would often more likely be called groups in normal English, so bear that in mind.



I don't think this will provide any solutions, but at least it only says what the Japanese says.

Although it is not relevant here, I will add a word or two on terms that have been disputed in other threads.

The Japanese rules expert Sekiguchi Harutoshi (who, incidentally, discusses all the topics being discussed here in even more detail - even throws in a bit of algebra!) says (my comments in [ ]):

An empty intersection surrounded by live stones of only one side is called a 目 [countable point].
Empty intersections other than 目 are called 駄目 [dame = non-countable points]. Live stones [here = groups] that have 駄目 are called seki stones.
The 目 of live groups other than seki stones are called 地 [territory]. One intersection of 地 is referred to as 一目 [one countable point].

No it is alive because I just forget to mentionned an evidence : when you look for the status of a group you assume in addition that all intersection of the group are candidate to be new uncapturable stones.

Yes Jann, my interpretation of the rule was effectively that when stone TURNED uncapturable then a new uncapturable stones has been created even if none of the concerned stones have been effectively PLAYED. Here again it is MY interpretation of the rule without knowing what is really the intention of the original japanese text (do you know if the word "played" is explicitly mentionned in the original japanese text?)
BTW on this specific example it does not change anything because whatever the status of the one white stone group the result is a seki.
Anyway what is YOUR own interpretation? (I can easily change mine providing the new interpretation sounds clear). IOW do you agree that with your approach the group of 1 white stone is dead => seki => finally the two interpretations lead to the same result?
Could you find a position for which the two interpretations lead to two different results?

I'm afraid that this understanding is divorced from the meaning of the term "confirmation" and it is not how L&D confirmation works in the Japanese Rules. Adding a stone to an already alive group "confirms" nothing by itself. Adding a stone to the marked points does not show anything under L&D confirmation by itself.

I know. In the main variation that's been discussed lately, the 1 ko-stone is alive because even if it is captured, Black cannot connect to prevent recapture since it can then be captured, or if Black does not connect, White can capture back and continue to capture more Black stones such that White's played stones are uncapturable. The living status of the 1 White stone is shown because it can capture black's stones to create an uncapturable shape, not simply because it can connect to an already living group.

This is misleading, overly broad, and ultimately incorrect. This is not "all J89 demands." This is a summary of "alive stone" and definitely not a summary of the Life and Death confirmation process. Simply showing that a stones can create new uncapturable stones is not enough to show that individual separate stones are alive as shown in Example 24 and 25. The players must go through the process of confirming which stones are the cause of the living status and disconnected stones that do not contribute to the living status do not create territory on their own.

As shown in Example 24, is dead and point b is dame even though White can play a new uncapturable stone with . All does is show that is alive when considered separately, making point c territory, but it does not show that is alive. So is dead.

Your interpretation of the Rules contradicts the example in the Rules.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ ----------------------
$$ | b Q X X . . X O . . .-| 1 Q X X . . X O . . .
$$ | @ X X . X X X O . . .-| O X X . X X X O . . .
$$ | c O X X O O O O . . .-| 2 O X X O O O O . . .
$$ | O O O X O . . . . . .-| O O O X O . . . . . .
$$ | . O X X O . . . . . .-| . O X X O . . . . . .
$$ | O O O O X . . . . . .-| O O O O X . . . . . .
$$ | . O X X X . . . . . .-| . O X X X . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .-| O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .-| X X X . . . . . . . .[/go]

Looking at those examples and the discussion, it's worth noting that dame filling and teire would occur before concluding L&D confirmation. So these positions with irregularities can be solved in L&D confirmation without continuing the game.

The player can either accept the loss of territory due to dame or fill dame and play teire to solve the issue. Here, White just plays teire in L&D confirmation and the 5 stones are alive when considered separately because they cannot be captured at all.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ----------------------
$$ | O . O . X . . O O . O
$$ | O O O X O X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O W O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Like I said in my previous response, the White and Black stones are not simply connecting to an already alive group. This is not a case where a one stone is captured and another stone is added to different group that is alive. This is a case where a stone is captured and that stone can then capture the stones that capture it. It is the ability to capture back that causes the stones to become uncapturable, and thus living.

This interpretation contradicts Example 24. The uncapturable connecting stone would not have been played if the ko-stone had been captured before, yet the ko-stone is deemed dead.

----------

There is a difference between merely adding a stone to your already alive group and actually capturing the opponent's stones to make an uncapturable shape, even if the uncapturable shape is with your already alive stones.

Fantastic! It is frequently mentioned that the original doesn't contain words/phrases like "enable" and "new stones" but without a new translation it was only possible to guess what that really meant.

I also suppose it doesn't resolve what exactly is the meaning of 'newly forming stones', and that most translations (but you stated your intention) would look for a single English word to express that idea (James Davis uses 'enable' and Google translate uses 'produce'). Still, maybe it is now possible to stop debating the meaning of the phrase 'would enable'.



I think I just don't understand what you mean. I thought when you said that the following diagram was seki that this meant the marked white stone was alive, it is same in as example 5. I actually don't know what this diagram was supposed to show beyond example 5, but I may also have confused with what you said about example 4 in the same post.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------
$$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O |
$$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O |
$$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Is it then the case that you think that the marked black stones are dead? Otherwise the marked white stone would be in black's territory. Maybe both example 1 and 5 are then wrong? It is hardly an oversight that j89 contradicted Shuwa's ruling in example 1 and it must have been given a lot of thought. This might be the only thing most people know about j89. I have no idea why you describe this as a traditional understanding of the 'enable rule'.



Thank you for stating what you think the rule is.

I have little idea why you want to define "would enable" in this way. I don't see the word "enable" as something important or meaningful and I think John's new translation demonstrates that you could use many different words in its place. Basically, I don't understand why you don't discard this idea when it fails on example 1.

If you don't bother to read my posts, then why bother to pretend you have? Disagree with my position if you want but don't make stuff up about me that's clearly not true and takes 2 seconds to check. It looks bad.

I am clearly not talking about my own ideas. And I am certainly not using vague phrases without definition. My entire position is based on definitions and I have made several posts providing definitions, some in response to you. I'll quote my previous posts and make it large. But please, don't read it. Instead, buy yourself a copy of the "advanced learned" OED.






-----

I disagree. White's side stones are dead when considered separately but during confirmation the interdependence would be recognized. In Example 4, there is symmetry of stones such that if the 5 White stones on one side are captured then the 5 White stones on the other side cannot be captured, and vice versa. When confirming the L&D status of 5 stones separately, those stones are deemed dead. But when considering the other 5 stones, the symmetry and interdependence is recognized and the 10 stones can be deemed alive. The bottom line is that the players would recognize that the 5 stones should not be considered separately (where they are dead) but should be considered as 10 stones. Just like the players would not break a two eye group into two one-eye groups and pretend that they are dead separately. There is an interdependence in a 2 eye group just as there is an interdependence here.