I suppose, Japanese 2003 Rules are yours. Perhaps you have to think about them ?

When evaluating the status of Black's stone at Tengen, it will disappear and never been born again.

A single stone that (or its successor) cannot be connected to a "2-eyed" group, has no chance to "live".

"Live" means to be connected to 2 points that must not be occopied by the opponent. If the single stone turns into one of these points, you have created a special type of board point: 50 % occopied, 50 % unoccupied.

In my opinion you have copied the inconsistent definition of "life" in the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules "... or if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture".

As said in a previous posting, you must not use the same rule for single stones and chains, if the chain cannot be handled in toto as a single stone. This being the source of some inconsistencies in the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules (x point without capturing, for example). The "new stone" (or "stones" when a chain is concerned) cannot be played anywhere !

If you want my rules to behave in your example 0000 as you wishes, a simple change in the wording would be sufficient. The primary points of the captured chain would have to become part of a "2-eyed" group. Will make no difference with "normal" situations.

May be that is it a more philosophical question: Can something be "alive" that vanishes into thin air ? Should be answered by native Japanese.

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

That is amusing. I always though J2003 was Jasiek 2003 rules. I didn't realize he called it Japanese 2003 rules. That is adding confusion to the list that doesn't need to be there. If people start talking about Japanese 2003 rules, some people may think such a thing exists but the latest as pointed out before is 1989.

First do some homework: Read and understand all my webpages on Japanese rules! Then correct your signature and replace it by a reference to finding written rules that explain professional Japanese rules, a problem existing from 1603 (or earlier) to 2004:)

Read http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003com.html for how long I have thought to create J2003.

Saying that tengen will never be born again is misleading: It depends on the opponent's hypothetical strategic choices.

ALA one does not claim to produce something Japanese style, there is nothing wrong with a concept of life that also finally requires a stone on an intersection of every initial stone that shall live. (But if you use that - not for Japanese but for other territory scoring rules - then you should be more consistent: Stable of the kind capturable-1 is inconsistent then.) One can also design dozens of other territory scoring life definitions that are not Japanese style. I guess I have done so privately, but most of such rulesets are not particularly exciting - they lack convincing quality (like not Japanese enough or not simplified enough). Your suggestion "'Live' means to be connected to 2 points that must not be occopied by the opponent." with the implicit context that such is supposed to be a requirement ALSO for the initial stones is esoteric though. (If you think carefully about it, you will discover more surprises that you had not intended: Initially opposing stones on one or two of what will become the two empty intersections of a two-eye-formation.) Let us suppose though that somehow you will manage to skip all those nasty side-effects. Then your idea of combining "connected to two empty intersections" and "initial stones will be occupied by the player's stones finally" is another (and probably new) life concept for some territory scoring rules.

For rules to be Japanese style, they must meet more though than, e.g., your wild guess that your concept would agree to Japanese style, your wild, unreasoned attack on J2003 and your ignorance of, e.g., my model on WAGC Rules life.

To know what is Japanese style of Go game's life, we have sources: In particular J949, J989, WAGC Rules, verbal Japanese rules. Directly or indirectly, they all share in particular the following about independent life:

- At least two eyes are required.
- "eye" was undefined (before Robert Pauli's and my definitions) but everybody the functional purpose: the ability to rely on two separated "taboo" intersections due to the no suicide rule.
- A single string or a group of strings can form life together.
- There are uncapturable or capturable living strings.
- It does not matter whether the final places of the eyes and stones equal the initial places if only at least one new stone would be under one of the old stones of the same colour.

A requirement for capturable-2 was overlooked by all rules experts in Japan. The concept explains professional Japanese examples and the relation between WAGC-life and J1989-like life perfectly though.

Not only have I NOT copied the inconsistent J1989 life definition, but rather I have CORRECTED and COMPLETED it! Of the some 35 versions of J2003, you can find some via google in rec.games.go archives, I'd guess. In particular, I proved why "J1989-enable" does not work for explaining the Japanese professionals' own modern rules tradition.

You are wrong to see inconsistency in J1989 because of their different treatment of initially having a string and then being happy with already at least one new stone under the stones. Read and understand my rules and commentaries! E.g., capturable-2 explains shapes like 3-points-without-capturing in their J1989 appendices treatment (note: the name is meaningless though).

Indeed, the new stone cannot be played anywhere. Read and understand J2003! Did I say it already? Read and understand J2003! Read and understand J2003! In particular understand "local-2"! This is the term with which I prevent the new stone from being played anywhere.

With the J2003 or WAGC-model life concepts, stones do not vanish in the air but the (possibly new) living stones and the "eyes" form a unity: the 2-eye-formation. Read and understand
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcmod.html
http://senseis.xmp.net/?TwoEyeFormation

As much as Berliners are not inhabitants of Berlin but jam cakes.
Hamburgers are not inhabitants of Hamburg but fast food.
Wiener are not inhabitants of Vienna but sausage.
For further discussion of dual usage of geographical names, see rec.games.go archives. This topic must have been discussed a dozen of times now.

And have you ever seen any text with such a detailed copyright notice under it...? "[...] The author Robert Jasiek [...]" Sometimes understanding just requires reading...

Is it even theoretically possible to have Japanese style rules without an evaluation phase with special extra rules?



Instead of saying "not acceptable" and "wrong choice", isn't is just better to write opinions like "I don't like", "I wouldn't want"? Or add "In my opinion" to your writing. These things are, after all, just a matter of taste and opinion.

The number of legal positions is ca. 1.2 * 10^170, i.e., orders of magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the universe. Those poses serious storage problems for a trivial approach of setting one exceptional rule per position. While it is in principle mathematically trivially possible, our physical environment is the problem for having Japanese style rules without an evaluation phase but with special extra rules. Or have you meant also withOUT precedents?

If compromises are being made and Japanese rules are simplified, the we can use an approach like the Simplified Japanese Rules or even more radical departures like the Simplified WMSG 2008 Rules. Of course, it becomes less and less similar to Japanese rules then.

I think the Japanese approach has, in general, been decidedly local w.r.t. life & death issues, so precedents on global positions are not really Japanese style. (They are, one might say, unprecedented, if you'll forgive me the pun )



There are, of course, all sorts of ways to simulate a Japanese style territory score with combinations of area style rules, pass stones, buttons, etc. But I wouldn't consider that Japanese style rules.

Thanks for your suggestions, Robert, but I will not change my signature. I suppose the search for the solution of Igo Hatsuyoron's #120 more difficult than that for an consistent rule set. But perhaps I have found the solution already, not proven by professionals, who knows ? What remembers me of some work I would have had to to with it ...

I thought long about the fact, why our discussions erupt from time to time.
Let me try finding an explanation.

When I look back at your rules texts (I haven't read them in toto, they are too complex for me), I feel that you are driven by something I would name "search for the origin of life".

To define "life" in the first instance, is the hard and long way in my opinion. You have come to a conclusion now, and I think a valid one. But your texts are written in a mathematical / logical / scientifical style, what perhaps is necessary to reach their aim after eons of intens research, so that the wording is not appropriate for the "normal" reader. In addition, starting with "life" makes it necessary to develop a clear definition for "eye". What explains why you are so keen with it.

It is not my intention to replace your definition of "life" with a new one of mine. Once I started with questions of "life", too, but I have given up, because I recognized that there is a simpler path (for me).

Evaluating the status of each chain is sufficient.

"Territory is what is inside a living group." and "When there is territory, you will have a living group." seems to be the same, but there is a tiny, but decisive difference.

If you are looking for "Will contain territory." and "Will become prisoner.", there is no need to have a definition of "life". The board point named "eye", when coming from "life", gets its value by being forbidden for the opponent. There is no trouble with "'lives' in Seki, but contains no territory."

If you think (and you are the only one who can judge it) that what I have written (OK, the wording could be better) could possible give the same results as what is your intention with your rules (may be after some tiny supplement and / or correction), you have the chance to get YOUR contents in a "language" probably more user will understand. There will be always the "scientifical" text in the background to prove that the "colloquial" one is correct and consistent.

What I meant with the correlation of "stone" and "chain" is the following and is related especially to evaluated chains, which can be captured.

All of the primary points of the chain must end in the same status, do you want to get "Will contain territory" or "Will become prisoner" for the chain. "Must become part of a '2-eyed' chain." (for "Will contain territory" for a capturable chain) had been my first intention, but I didn't dare, because I feared your comment on a wording like that. With this slight editing, some of my diagrams would change.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

would now end with

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ |------------
$$ |W C . . O .
$$ |. . . . O .
$$ |O O O O O .
$$ |M O M O O .
$$ |O O O O O .
$$ |. . . . . .[/go]

And your example 0000 would be

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ |-------------------
$$ |Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q . |
$$ |Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y . Y . Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y P Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y . P Y P . Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y . Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y . Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q |
$$ |. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q |
$$ |-------------------[/go]

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

It depends on what you call "japanese style". If you want "locality", then no, but I am convinced that "locality" is a deeply flawed concept (and not "traditional" either!). However, if you just want "pure" territory scoring, I think that it should be possible. I actually made an attempt at that: After play stops, in the case of dispute, there is a single, global, hypothetical playout, in which the players determine control of the intersections. This control is then applied to the final position, removing all stones that are on an intersection controlled by the opposing colour. The implications have not been extensively explored yet, however.



Well, in my opinion, that opinion is wrong. What else can I write then? The alternatives do not have equivalent merit, therefore I just cannot lean back and say "it's just a matter of taste".

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Herman, that a score for the global position is assigned does not make the nature of the score global. Of course, it could be a score determined from local properties.

Harleqin, one global playout sequence is possible like in the Simplified Japanese Rules or like in New Amateur-Japanese Rules with one instead of two analysis sequences. Of course, there are very scarce differences in case of kos. Those scarce positions would differ from current Japanese tradition. The difference is relatively small though so that one can still speak of Japanese style rules. But one changed score every 1,000th to 50,000th (I can only guess the frequency) game is way beyond what Japanese traditionalists want to bear... They consider this more important than practical inapplicability of the rules as rules.

Cassandra, the search for a consistent ruleset is a matter of seconds. What took so long was the research for a written ruleset explaining professional Japanese rules tradition.

Our discussions become hot when a) you refuse to read something essential, b) you ignore already found facts, c) you write mistakes or things remaining unclear, d) you confuse opinion with facts etc.

If you are not able to understand my rule texts entirely, then you can try to understand at least parts. E.g., you might ignore everything on a lower definition level than "force" in J2003. However, spending less than 2 weeks on understanding, e.g., J2003 is a mistake anyway (unless you would understand it faster). You should not expect to understand it faster given that I needed 10 years to find and 11 months to write it.

If you do not understand something, then why do you not ask? Instead you do not even dare to read far enough to know what you might want to ask.

Start with the simplest Japanese style ruleset: the Simplified Japanese Rules. Are you able to understand them?

You want rules to be written like prose. You might have to be very patient until hopefully I write my 10+ volumes Go Rules Encyclopedia, which should explain everything also for the laziest reader. Writing such a commentary requires 2 to 6 weeks per Japanese style ruleset. Since you expect me to spend more time on writing on a lazy-user-friendly level than you want to spend on reading, you must wait and then pay for the books.

BTW, there is already an informal text version of J2003:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003inf.html

Maybe you should accept the fact that Japanese style rules are more difficult than you want to invest energy in them?

You say "starting with 'life' makes it necessary to develop a clear definition for 'eye'". This shows that you have not understood even the rough basic structure of my Japanese rulesets yet. Neither J2003 nor my life model of WAGC Rules define or would need to define "eye"!!! I had to write an additional strategic level pile of definitions, where I defined eye; this is not used for the rules at all.

The J1989/J2003 life is not defined via "eye" but via capturability. Also for the definition of territory, "eye" is not needed but "eye-point" is used, which is a DIFFERENT concept. - The WAGC life model is also not defined via "eye" but via "2-eye-formation".

Although you take great pains to pretend not using "life" in your rules, what you actually do is to define forms of life: 2-eyed and stable are life while removable is dead.

Apart from ko rules, as I have said, your current life definition is like J2003-alive without capturable-2, which is removable / dead under your rules.

"All of the primary points of the chain must end in the same status": There I agree (for practically useful rulesets).

I do not understand this text of yours: "do you want to get 'Will contain territory' or 'Will become prisoner' for the chain. 'Must become part of a '2-eyed' chain.' (for 'Will contain territory' for a capturable chain) had been my first intention [...]. With this slight editing, some of my diagrams would change." I also do not understand your application of this text on the following diagrams. Please explain both the text and its application to the diagrams carefully!

I think, I will start with your treatment of 1989 Nihon Kiin rules example #16, which I have found in your "j1989c".

This for two reasons:
First, I suppose that it will be easier for me to grasp the deeper meaning of your termini when I try to understand their application on a concrete position.
Second, you come to the same conclusion as the Nihon Kiin rules (what differs from what I had posted). #16 is one example of what I meant with the complaint that there is no clear distinction between "Evaluate" and "Count". "Dies trough the collapse of the Seki" can also be found in #17 and #18. "Collapse of the Seki" means "taking stones off the board", what in my modell can only happen during "Count".


No. I would find a user-friendly version of the "correct" rules especially suitable.

I mean "user-friendly", not "informal".


May be true. #120 takes more that enough time.


"removable" inside "2-eyed" is dead.


I understood your example 0000 (concerning all of a captured chain's primary points) that my privious "must get 2 'taboo-points'" (what is equivalent to "get connected to a '2-eyed' chain") must be complemented by "or be turned into one of those".
So you can stop the evaluation sequence when it is clear that all of the primary points lay inside a "2-eyed" group. And in my solution to your #0000 Tengen turns into "2-eyed".

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

Starting with #16 is about the worst choice you could make. It has a too rare shape to be relevant for practice. The diagrams in my commentary are missing online due to difficulties with my text and HTML editors. Why don't you start with the simplest examples?!

"Collapse of the Seki" is terrible in the official J1989 commentary because it is entirely unrelated to the J1989 rules. They do not have any term or concept "Collapse of the Seki"! They do not even define "seki"!

The correct rules are the Japanese 2003 Rules, version 35a. The original Japanese 1989 Rules are incorrect in many respects, see, e.g., my commentary on them. So when you want to see a user-friendly version of the correct rules, read the commentary on Japanese 2003 Rules: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003com.html

Maybe I will post a user-friendly summary on how to read the J1989 Rules.

Please show me in every detail how your (modified?) rules turn Example 0000's tengen into something "2-eyed"!

It will be important for me to recognise where the difference in evaluation comes from. Maybe thereafter I will understand your terminology better than before.


But I suppose that your evaluation of #16 (whole j1989c is as of 2007) will match the J2003 requirements ?

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

The evaluation sequences for the stone at Tengen are the same as for Black's group.

We evaluate one of Black's chains, so it's White's turn.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

If she does nothing, Black connects. Both the Tengen stone and the chain possess 2 "taboo-points" now.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

If she decides to move, she can only capture Black's stone at Tengen.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ |-------------------
$$ |O O O O O O O O . |
$$ |O X X X X X X X O |
$$ |O X . X 6 X X X O |
$$ |O X X X O X X X O |
$$ |O X 4 O 3 O 8 X O |
$$ |O X X X O X X X O |
$$ |O X X X 2 X X X O |
$$ |O X X X X X X X O |
$$ |. O O O O O O O O |
$$ |-------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wm9
$$ |-------------------
$$ |O O O O O O O O . |
$$ |O X X X X X X X O |
$$ |O X . X X X X X O |
$$ |O X X X 6 X X X O |
$$ |O X X 4 1 8 X X O |
$$ |O X X X 2 X X X O |
$$ |O X X X X X X X O |
$$ |O X X X X X X X O |
$$ |. O O O O O O O O |
$$ |-------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

The sequence comes to an end

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Considering Black's chain, it has 2 "taboo-points" now.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Considering Black's stone at Tengen, it has been captured (what results in subtype (III)) and been transformed into a "taboo-point".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

This "taboo-point" at Tengen has a "partner" in the top left, so it belongs to a "2-eyed" chain of Black.

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

Which kind of difference in evaluation, which you would like to understand, are you referring to? I might tell you what to read if you specify that.

Of course, #16 analysis under J2003 meets the J2003 requirements.

I think now I understand how you want your modified rules to apply to Example 0000.

If I had read it correctly, your result of #16 is that all of White's stones are dead (as they are with the Nihon Kiin rules).

My evaluation ends in Seki for all.

There must be a reason for this difference and I would like to know it.

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

The #16 diagrams are in the attached PDF.

I am not sure though whether you search these, which use the J1989 hypothetical ko rule. If you want the J2003 application, read http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003com.ht ... alPosition and decipher the lexically annotated hypothetical-sequences!

Thanks.

I'm sorry, but I hadn't read this text yet, due to the missing diagrams.
So you also come to the conclusion that there is a fault in the Nihon Kiin rules' evaluation.

What about the "application of analytical Ko-pass rule" on example #16 further down in the text, which ends with all of White's stones being dead ?

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

After going through the examples of my classification.pdf in the "...."-tread (see xxxxx) I think that we can simplify the topic much more by using only one status to be found (or even not for its complement) at the end of the evaluation of a string (may be a single stone).


What follows, is my new suggestion for processing "Evaluate".

"Evaluate" will determine the status of each string individually.
Determining the status of each string begins with a move of the opponent (may be a Pass).

There are two statuses:

• "2-eyed": All primary points of the string will become part of a 2-taboo-point-formation of the string's colour.
• "not-2-eyed": At least one primary point of the string will not become part of a 2-taboo-point-formation of the string's colour.

Some definitions:

• "2-taboo-point-formation" = set of strings (may be one), which include at least 2 taboo-points.
• "taboo-point" = point of the board, where a stone of the opposing colour must not be placed according to the rules (i.e. a stone must not be placed so that it has no lifeline left), excluding any Ko rule.
• Minimum length of a string is 1.

Basic Ko rule, also valid for evaluation is

• A player must not place a stone that would immediately recapture the last opponent's stone placed in a Ko shape.

During "Count", "not 2-eyed" strings inside opposing "2-eyed" strings are taken off the board as prisoners. Thereafter, "territory" is each empty point inside "2-eyed" strings.

"... will become" can also be understood as "the opponent cannot force that ... do not become"


2-eyed strings that cannot be captured remain unaffected, as remain Uttegaeshi and Nakade.

Colloquially named "dead" strings will be turned into prisoners as before.

Strings in positions colloquially named "Seki" will all get the status not-2-eyed, therewith not being inside opposing 2-eyed-strings:

• The evaluation sequence will be caught in a cycle.
• The string will be captured, but not succeeded in toto on its primary points.
• The string cannot be captured.

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