The text by Chen Zuyuan, which was first published on GoGoD's webpage, is now also available as PDF on my rules webpage:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/TangChen.pdf

Please excuse the software's trial note!

EDIT:

On request, I have removed the file, so the PDF link does not work any longer.

Did I miss the request to GoGoD for permission, Robert? That's two days work you've taken from me. And, unless I missed it, there's no acknowledgement of GoGoD in your pdf.

John, I have asked Chen for permission and his words were "Ich habe zu John Fairbairn gesagt, dass ich versprochen habe, der Artikel auf Ihrer Webseite zu veröffentlichen. Sie müssen nur eine Erklärung abgeben: Das Text wechselte von seiner Website und mit Meine Erlaubnis.". Since he is the copyright owner, I have found his statement sufficient. If you think that it is insufficient and that your rights as a translator override his rights as a copyright owner and author, then I will remove the copy of his text from my webpage. On the other hand, I would like to ask you for your permission, regardless of whether it might or might not be needed. I have been under the impression that international and German copyright laws allow publication if the copyright owner has agreed (quite like a book may be published regardless of the translators' work) but law is complicated and I might be misinformed. Therefore I would remove the copy on your request. For the sake of informing the go community, I hope though that you could give your agreement.

EDIT:

I have received the PDF from Chen. I do not have a tool for editing PDFs, so I cannot add a GoGoD remark inside the PDF. Instead my rules webpage contains the reference:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html#information

Robert, a translator (or editor) generally has rights to the translated (or edited) version if done with permission. The author has rights to the original.

However, I am not seeking recompense. You may use the English text as produced by me so long as you include a prominent note at the front of the pdf file acknowledging use of GoGoD's version, together with a link. Permission is limited to that use and this text.

Your argument about informing the go community rings hollow. New In Go already does that. And whether or not the law is complicated or different in various countries is beside the point. You took two days of my work without asking. I saw no word of apology from you for that.

Since currently I cannot edit PDFs and comply with your request of adding a note on the front of the PDF file, I will remove the file from my webpage immediately.

EDIT:

Done.

The question about rights is: Which rights? More specifically, who has the right of publishing the translation? It can depend on agreements between author and publisher, etc.

My argument about informing the go community is not an attempt to justify permission. I think that a text available on two webpages has roughly twice the potential to become widely known.

I do not think that "I took your work" is a good description. From what I know so far, you and others worked voluntarily for Chen to translate the text. In return, Chen appears to have permitted you to publish his then translated text on GoGoD's webpage. Besides Chen got the translation for his own usage. Since then Chen gave me permission (in his and my opinion) to publish his text (translated by you and, according to Chen, others), I took his work, which then also benefited from translation work, to publish it on my webpage. I think this is a valid procedure because Chen owns the copyright. AFAIK and unless there are special argeements, normally there is no such thing as an automatic separate copyright of a translation and the copyright remains with the copyright holder of the original.

Therefore, according to my current knowledge, I do not think that I have done something wrong. So there is nothing I could apologise for. That is why you have not seen a word of apology from me.

EDIT2:

Of course, it would be different if Chen had granted you (or GoGoD) exclusive rights to the publication of the translations. Due to his statement to me, I have to believe though that this is not the case.

If that's your view, Robert, don't ever ask me anything again. We are talking about courtesy, not n-copyright and q-copyright.

Apparently we have different senses of courtesy.

Since you are carrying on a private conversation in public, I hope you don't mind if I butt in.

Yes, Robert. Apparently your sense of courtesy does not recognize the necessity of smoothing ruffled feathers when you have offended a colleague and instead requires you to justify your actions. To me, as an American, such behavior appears shocking and reprehensible. Having had similar experiences with Germans, I wonder if the tendency to bend over backwards instead of to resolve the situation with a simple apology is not akin to the Chinese necessity of not losing face. If so, I assure you that when dealing with Americans and probably with the British as well, apologizing for having stepped on someone's toes will not lower your stature, but rather allow for a return to productive interaction.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

daal, I did not ask John for permission before putting the file on my webpage because that would have been impolite to Chen because it would have questioned his permission, his right to issue permission and the agreement between Chen and me of a possible upload on my webpage long before any translators became active. In other words, courtesy towards Chen and courtesy towards John are in conflict.

That's water under the bridge. While it may or may not have been correct to ask for John's permission, it does not change the fact that he feels offended that you did not ask. While John has already effectively excused your transgression by granting his permission provided you acknowledge his work, you have not offered your part of the deal, which is to acknowledge that he felt snubbed by your actions and apologize for not handling the situation better. To me, not doing so seems a good deal more rude and in fact surprising than what caused the scuff in the first place. As I've seen other Germans behave similarly, perhaps it's just a cultural misunderstanding.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

daal, you paint a one-sided picture and forget about my offended feelings. And no, I do not return the opposing direction, especially not in public. But do not blame me just because of your knowledge of only a small part and my decision not to make all public.

My apologies for my poor judgment to discuss this in public.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

hi，i think one of the most important things is not only the translation,but the information realed by this paragraph:
"The latter half of the sentence is understandable, though: the player with more stones is the winner. The key to interpreting the whole sentence is the word "overflowing". C&IP and GTAM both mention and explain this word. GTAM says: “Overflowing means filled to capacity”, and C&IP says: ”Complete, with no overflowing”. Obviously, “overflowing” is an ancient go term. It means that stones have been placed everywhere they can on the board, and the next one will overflow, so that the game is over. “Two [or both] overflowing” means that both Black and White are "complete, with no overflowing". Therefore, the meaning of the sentence is: “Both sides place stones on the board until there is no place left to play, then stop, and the player with more stones is the winner.” This is stones scoring. In fact this rule was in use in China until the beginning of the last century. The only difference between it and the area scoring used today is that, for each string of living stones, there had to remain two eye points which had to be deducted when counting. If the basic eye points were completely filled, then the string of stones would die. The term "overflowing" in contrast to "complete" emphasises that the two eye points cannot be filled.

"


it means that the acient go game has different object for playing go (from modern go game --after 19th century),or different judging standard about who win.
it means that the object of the acient go game is more live stones on the board ,not the more points(territory
?) surrounding on the board .

Surrounding more open points(territory
) on the board is just the methoed for more stones can be put on the board ,not the object!
so in China,for thousands years at the end of the game ,they only count live stones and the open points(road) on the board where can be put on stones ,the two eyes of each live stones part (stones block together with territory) are not scored.

in moderm go game ,all the game rules' object is larger land?grond?(territory?i don't kown how to say it).so you must define what is the field?grond?(territory).so therer are 3 more rules (Chinese rule ,Jpanese rule ,Korea rule ,American rule and so on),infact ,they are
parallel logically.Essentially Speaking, one can't persuade another ,their difference is just the artificial diffinition .
the ancient go game's object can derivation a simple and stuipid rule system , which have no divergence logically,and is self-consistent logically .it needn't deffine other concept artificially,just like what territory is ,are eyes ,public liberty territories?
Japanese friends misunderstood the go game during Tang Dynasty (ac618-917) intuitively,because of the scoring(counting?) roads method for judging who win.The method is similar to the japanese rule ,but it does not computer the two eyes of each part .it only computer stones and points can be put on stones,two eyes must be open(empty) for live,so you can't put stones on them.

bye the way ,the "stop 停"，chen 's translation has problem,because the "stop 停"in ancient chinese has another mean :average,average.the road means where you can go (put stones on ,no eyes)

Ahh, an argument between JF and RJ. Brings back such memories...

I sometimes wonder if I could ask the BGA to redact every copy of the British Go Journal they placed online with an article I penguined in it. Everything I submitted was done on the understanding that it would be to their own limited audience and confined to the printed journal. Then they all went online ...

_________________
North Lecale

In "Jia Xuan's game" in the second GoGoD link we're discussing there's a seki. It seems from that that groups in seki did not have the group tax applied. Chen refers to there being two black groups and three white groups (which you can see are the numbers not including the groups in seki) and, after applying group tax for these, gets agreement with the source.

The seki is eyeless. If you talk about eyes needed for life not counting, no points would be "taxed". But the group tax in stone scoring did apply to seki. Even though the Black stones in the seki make up two strings that cannot be connected, Black is considered to have only one group in seki. Since each player has one group in the seki, the group tax cancels out. That's a strange way to do it, but it works.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

You could try...

Jon

I agree it makes sense not to tax seki groups from a stone counting perspective, just as it makes sense not to count eyes in seki (Chen mentions this later, though without giving an explicit game example).

You mention cancelling group taxes, though. There's none of that here. Chen get agreement of the final black and white scores (not just their difference) with the source by taxing black for two groups and white for three (the numbers of non-seki groups).