BTW Jann, why not having "simply" use the following position:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

with the same result?

Yes Jann I agree with you, white can claim for a territory in the center. This position looks a seki in J2003 and this seki result seems more in the spirit of japonese rule. Agreed.

Let me try to understand the issue.

The problem with the approach of this thread - as opposed to big sister LJRG - seems to be allowing global play without looking at global consequences.

Once White has taken Black's right-hand group off the board, the seki will be resolved completely from right to left.

As I already mentioned earlier several times, painting diagrams would help a lot

No, the leftmost string of five black stones remains alive in seki with the white group to its left (there are two dame between these groups)

Your first question could explain the second. W's left is big to make sure W never want to actually use that in ko threat (small left may worth throwing away in game).

The position is not seki because of anything wrt J2003 - it is seki by general Japanese (or general go) logic. W cannot do anything in reality since going for the capture would be disadvantageous (cost much higher than the gain). LD analysis should reflect go reality (which is same under Chinese rule).


This allows confirmation results very different from real go outcomes (no "enable" like J89, so W can play lines he would never in reality - since consequences ignored).

BTW you should always try to look at the logic behind rules (examples come later, nitpicking on wordings lastly / never). Go has centuries of history, the concepts and cohesive logic in real, widely used rules are simple and somewhat robust (even if modern formalizations aren't yet).

For others: W not claimed anything about left B string, only the middle one.

Your comments sound quite interesting but I have difficulties to understand what is really your understanding of this general Japanese (or general go) logic.
In chinese GO the logic is clear, and because there are no confirmation phase at all, the same logic applies till the very end of the game. In that sense chinese GO is perfect.
In japanese GO the logic is not as clear, though japanese GO has been played for centuries . The issue is that when game stops by agreement after "normal play" it is difficult to resolve the dispute by just using normal play.

In order for me to really understand your comment, can you show how you apply this japanese GO logic in the three following very common examples

Yes. But we know Japanese go and Chinese go are closely tied to each other. So there must not be any outrageously large differences in outcomes. And even in Japanese go you can imagine what would happen if the game would continue (ignoring the small potential score drift caused by unanswered cleanup moves - or using pass stones). In my above example, there is no doubt about the correct ruling - Japanese and Chinese go agree (as is usually the case).


Moonshine life is one particular case (maybe the only one) where the basic rules logic may not be sufficient. But note this is NOT specific to Japanese go but also the same in Chinese go!

The question is, of course, the logical difference between real triple ko (which is draw in both Japanese and Chinese) and moonshine kos (which treatment varied a bit in history but the current consensus is that it is dead). Several interesting ideas appeared about this in the past, you can find reference material on usenet and elsewhere if interested.

How do you apply the japanese logic to bent four in the corner beside an unremovable ko threat

Bent4 is less interesting for rule theory. Japanese invented local L/D, partly as an attempt to fix moonshine life. A doubtful hack IMO but is deeply rooted in Japanese minds now. And once they went this route bent4 become dead even with unremovable threats. Not good but in itself not unacceptably bad either. Just for fun you can also try this example in J89 with enable but without pass for ko.

Isn't it exactly the perfect japonese rule you have in mind?

You also seem to overestimate the extent of acceptable complexity of go rules. Even a single hack like pass stones or pass for ko is borderline, bigger and more (like 2-3 complicated inventions at the same time) are too much. And the more you use the more likely those lack a cohesive theory and are patches over patches.

Like if you do playout with pass stones, onesided dame is natural consequence. If you don't like that, you have a problem with the very logic behind pass stones - in that case no reason to do playout with them.

Let's try with this wording:

A set of locations is a "controlled area" for a player if:
1) The inside border contains neither empty locations nor stones of the opponent.
2) The outside border contains neither empty locations nor stones of the player.
3) the set of locations can be entirely covered by a "two-eye formation" even if the opponent plays first in an alternation game using normal play and the "permanently prohibited" ko (see here after)

A "player's territory" is all the locations which are empty or occupied by an opponent stone, in a "player's controlled area".

Perfect. Now it makes sense

For the time being two positions are an issue for my "GT territory rule".

Firstly the following position I analysed in https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=266754#p266754

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

I concluded in "GT territory rule" that black has a territory in the upper right corner though a seki seems more appropriate.

And secondly the position found by Jann and showed in https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=266868#p266868

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Here "GT territory rule" concludes to territory though a seki seems more appropriate.

Two positions is already too many isn't?
That means that I missed something.

instead of playing the hypothetical play on all the board you play it only on the potential "controlled area"

This basically reverts to LJRG by Pauli. I think LJRG is not bad, but it still has some theoretical weakness (hidden redundancy).