5kyu triple Ko game, really weird shape, would love a review

Falcord · #1

Hey guys.

I'm pretty proud of this game I just played. I have a good day and I feel I'm playing reasonably well. I would like your insight on the game, what things should I've done better, etc =).

My purpose with this game was applying the concepts I've been reading on James Davies attack and defence, that is, attacking to gain something and not for the kill... And it seems it has gone well, even though there were some actual kills in the game.

The interesting bit though: The bottom right corner. Eventually we had a shape there that we couldn't wrap our heads around. It's my first time encountering a triple ko. I think neither of us had much experience with it because we awkwardly moved the shape around without really knowing its state. In the end we kind of assumed it was Seki but due to a mistake by him I managed to capture it and he resigned. I would like your thoughts on that shape too! (Also, how could I have killed it without getting into weird stuff like that!)

Thanks in advance.

I'm playing Black:

maproom · #2

You are right to be proud, you outplayed White throughout the game. You were already well ahead when he flipped his lid and filled his own liberty so as to lose the "fight" in the bottom right. I believe that, played correctly, you had the choice of playing the triple ko so as to achieve "no result", or just letting him capture your small group, so as to win by fifty points without it.

But you don't learn from reviewing games that you won. You learn from games that you lost: you work out, or are told, why you lost, so as to learn not to make that mistake again.

Falcord · #3

maproom wrote:

You are right to be proud, you outplayed White throughout the game. You were already well ahead when he flipped his lid and filled his own liberty so as to lose the "fight" in the bottom right. I believe that, played correctly, you had the choice of playing the triple ko so as to achieve "no result", or just letting him capture your small group, so as to win by fifty points without it.

But you don't learn from reviewing games that you won. You learn from games that you lost: you work out, or are told, why you lost, so as to learn not to make that mistake again.

Yep, you're right =) uploading a won game isn't that much helpful to me.

I did it this time solely because of the shape at the bottom right, because I have no clue how these work, and I was as surprised as him. I didn't know whether or not the game would get voided (and why), so it seemed like a good idea to post it ^^.

So... Why does it achieve "no result"? doesn't it make more sense to declare it Seki, given that neither of the groups can be killed? Is it because if he wanted, white could stall the game forever by going through the cycle? Thanks!

emeraldemon · #4

Just curious, did KGS detect the triple ko, or could you have looped indefinitely?

cyclops · #5

I suppose the game would be voided if you could not afford to give up that corner. As white I would have forced you to give it up before resigning. Just for revenge.

Falcord · #6

cyclops wrote:

I suppose the game would be voided if you could not afford to give up that corner. As white I would have forced you to give it up before resigning. Just for revenge.

I understand.

I think the rules would be a bit more elegant if they regarded those situations as Seki, but I guess that works too!

RobertJasiek · #7

Elegant rules do not introduce exceptions and in particular do not prescribe an artificial "no result" or "seki".

Falcord · #8

RobertJasiek wrote:

Elegant rules do not introduce exceptions and in particular do not prescribe an artificial "no result" or "seki".

Then under that definition I guess Japanese rules aren't too elegant (Bent 4 in the corner for example).

Tryss · #9

Falcord wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Elegant rules do not introduce exceptions and in particular do not prescribe an artificial "no result" or "seki".

Then under that definition I guess Japanese rules aren't too elegant (Bent 4 in the corner for example).

Japanese rules are full of ad-hoc solutions, and not very elegant. They are probably one of the worst ruleset in this regard

Rules like NZ rule are very elegant.

I guess superko + area scoring is the way to have elegant rules.

jts · **#10**

Falcord wrote:

cyclops wrote:

I suppose the game would be voided if you could not afford to give up that corner. As white I would have forced you to give it up before resigning. Just for revenge.

I understand.

I think the rules would be a bit more elegant if they regarded those situations as Seki, but I guess that works too!

Ing agreed with you, I think...I prefer the Japanese rules. Not sure why Robert thinks no result is a special ruling, but I suppose we should learn to expect it.

RobertJasiek · **#11**

jts wrote:

I prefer the Japanese rules.

Which? All existing Japanese rulesets?

Quote:

Not sure why Robert thinks no result is a special ruling

0) It is a rule designed for special cases.

1) It introduces an artificial kind of result very different from scoring-dependent results or resignation

2) Without extra clarification, undecidable strategy is created due to the introduced special result. See
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/mistakes.html

3) It introduces cases where [ko] ruling could be done without splitting cases.

4) It introduces ambiguity for the hypothetical analysis because it is unclear whether and possibly how the rule is appled then.

5) It introduces ambiguity for the 'no result' rule itself, because it is not clarified what happens if the players recycle forever and do not agree on creating a 'no result'.

Bill Spight · **#12**

Tryss wrote:

Falcord wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Elegant rules do not introduce exceptions and in particular do not prescribe an artificial "no result" or "seki".

Then under that definition I guess Japanese rules aren't too elegant (Bent 4 in the corner for example).

Japanese rules are full of ad-hoc solutions, and not very elegant. They are probably one of the worst ruleset in this regard

Rules like NZ rule are very elegant.

I guess superko + area scoring is the way to have elegant rules.

Tryss, whoever told you that about the Japanese rules is wrong. The Japanese rules of 1949 had a lot of ad hoc solutions, but the revised rules of 1989 eliminated them. There is no special rule for bent-four, for instance.

Not that the Japanese rules are elegant, but they are not ad hoc, either.

Bill Spight · **#13**

The bottom right corner at the end of the game is Black territory under AGA rules and Japanese rules. It is seki under the latest Ing rules. It think that it is Black territory under Chinese rules, but I am not sure. Under Korean rules, I do not know.

BTW, it is not a triple ko. If Black takes the ko, it is a triple ko. If White takes the ko, it is a double ko. A strange beast.

To see why White is dead under AGA and Japanese rules, see variations at move 231.

5kyu triple Ko game, really weird shape, would love a review

Who is online