Unsolved Problems in Go

RobertJasiek · **#21**

HermanHiddema wrote:

is tournament dependent

And this means that some tournaments do not specify the handling.

Quote:

The handling of no-result should not be part of the game rules.

Anything under-determined such as 'no-result' without further specification should not be part of the rules of play.

HermanHiddema · **#22**

RobertJasiek wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

is tournament dependent

And this means that some tournaments do not specify the handling.

Still, that does not make it an unsolvable problem. One can simply ask the organizers how a no-result will be handled.

RobertJasiek · **#23**

HermanHiddema wrote:

One can simply ask the organizers how a no-result will be handled.

And the organiser can answer: "I do not tell you because the referee / tournament committee may make an arbitrary decision!" When I posed similar questions to relevant organisers, then usually they tried the hardest to avoid having to clarify.

Besides not every game is played in a tournament. It is also possible that game positions are studied without being played.

HermanHiddema · **#24**

RobertJasiek wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

One can simply ask the organizers how a no-result will be handled.

And the organiser can answer: "I do not tell you because the referee / tournament committee may make an arbitrary decision!" When I posed similar questions to relevant organisers, then usually they tried the hardest to avoid having to clarify.

Besides not every game is played in a tournament. It is also possible that game positions are studied without being played.

Similarly, an organizer might tell you: We have not yet decided whether winning or losing is better. That decision will be made later, and points will be awarded accordingly. Such a problem is artificial, IMO, and has nothing to do with go theory. Perhaps we can consider it an unsolvable problem of go politics

For study of positions by themselves, I would no consider the result of the game a consideration. For partial board positions, it is similar to e.g. the result of the position depending on who is ko-master. For full-board, it is similar to depending on komi. To me, those are external considerations.

RobertJasiek · **#25**

HermanHiddema wrote:

For study of positions by themselves, I would no consider the result of the game a consideration.

It is the major consideration.

HermanHiddema · **#26**

RobertJasiek wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

For study of positions by themselves, I would no consider the result of the game a consideration.

It is the major consideration.

To me, the major consideration would be the score of the position, both for partial board and full board positions. Whether that score translates into win, draw, or loss is not, in a mathematical sense, as relevant. Two lines of play that both "win" can still be distinguished by score.

hyperpape · **#27**

Herman is right. Questions about go concern the results achieved in various positions. The question about how no result vs. tie affect the result of a tournament is no more a theoretical question concerning go than the question of which tesuji will best impress the woman of your dreams--it involves go, but isn't about go.

RobertJasiek · **#28**

hyperpape wrote:

The question about how no result vs. tie affect the result of a tournament is no more a theoretical question concerning go

The question is relevant also independent of tournaments.

TheBigH · **#29**

So the only question is which of the following applies:

Loss < Jigo < No Result < Win
Loss < No Result < Jigo < Win

and you've constructed a go problem that illustrates that question. In my opinion, the problem is solved if you can provide correct play for both those alternatives. A good analogy is differential equations; if I find the general solution I don't call the problem undecidable just because I don't know the boundary conditions. I call it solved. It's the same sort of thing here- we've identified the set of all possible solutions.

RobertJasiek · **#30**

TheBigH wrote:

we've identified the set of all possible solutions.

We have identified all possible resulting sequences (not: solutions) but we have not identified which of them is better (that would provide solutions).

SmoothOper · **#31**

Igo Hatsuyoron is cool. I was thinking that there would be smaller versions, where a groups status couldn't be known due to permutations in order of play. I think they would have to be bigger than 7x7 since those have been solved by computer. I suppose I would also be interested in tsumego that computers solved by computer that were extremely difficult, though I am not sure difficult for a computer means the same as for a person. Have any pro's used computers to develop especially difficult tesuji to refute?

csobod · **#32**

Cassandra wrote:

NoSkill wrote:

Any unsolved problem is only because ... the problem is too open ended (IE that igohatsu book having a 100+ move variation, cant be sure of answer).

Igo Hatsuyoron 120 is not "too open ended" at all.

The solution consist of three phases.

Phase 1 (approximately 70 moves long) is preparing the ground. This is the creation of the Hanezeki, including the building of the Hanezeki's tail. If we let aside really wrong moves for variations, it is possible to make some smaller, but not really decisive mistakes (i.e. non-optimal moves), which effect will be shown in phase 3.

Phase 2 if about finding the Guzumi or not (in this case Black will lose). And about White's best answer to the Guzumi (neither of which will lead to a White win). This phase is only two moves long, but extremely complex, because of the large amount of possible variations. And so far, nobody, even no professional, has found a refutation of the Guzumi.

Phase 3 (a further 100 moves until the end; endgame only) is harvesting the fruits. Nothing really decisive can happen here that would affect the outcome of the game (if we let aside really wrong moves again). And again, there is the chance of making some non-optimal, but non-decisive moves.

So the real problem of the problem is the situation before the Guzumi in the top right corner. We have been told by professionals that the Guzumi were a typical endgame move, which "usually" comes into mind automatically.

Thanks for breaking that down! I was just musing on it the other week with some chums.

Unsolved Problems in Go

Who is online