It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:51 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: End of game under AGA rules vs .sgf files
Post #41 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:47 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
goTony wrote:
When players have a contention at the club the consensus is play it out.


If playout is imagined or undone, this is possible. If playout is an actual continuation of the game, you are NOT using Japanese style rules but create nonsense: e.g., a player plays 1 stone in the opponent's territory so that the opponent loses 3 points by having to play 4 stones in his own territory to remove the stone.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: End of game under AGA rules vs .sgf files
Post #42 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:03 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
RobertJasiek wrote:
goTony wrote:
When players have a contention at the club the consensus is play it out.


If playout is imagined or undone, this is possible. If playout is an actual continuation of the game, you are NOT using Japanese style rules but create nonsense: e.g., a player plays 1 stone in the opponent's territory so that the opponent loses 3 points by having to play 4 stones in his own territory to remove the stone.


They may not be using Japanese rules, but Japanese style rules describes what they are doing. As to whether they are creating nonsense, it depends upon how the play out goes. What you describe is extremely unlikely, as they are not complete beginners.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: End of game under AGA rules vs .sgf files
Post #43 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 2:28 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 418
Liked others: 9
Was liked: 83
Rank: kgs 5 kyu
KGS: Pio2001
During centuries, in China and japan, go was played using territory counting, with no official ruleset. When an ambiguous shape appears, the problem is solved asking for the judgement of a third person.

The first complete official ruleset was the japanese one of 1949. It is huge (more than 50 pages ?), and tries to cover each and every exceptional configuration, although it is impossible, since there can be an infinity of them.
These rules are the ones that are the closest to the tradition of go, but they are a nightmare to use for federations that need to publish them (people who are new to go might just run away at the mere sighting of the rules), for the referees who must study them in order to help people during tournaments, and especially for programmers, who can't write any go software that follows them all.

Then, in 1975, China came with a much simpler ruleset using area counting. It is simple and clear, to the satisfaction of federations that must publish it and give it to the referees, and it can be easily programmed into softwares. But on the other hand, it is extremely heavy for the players, who have to count all the area at the end of each game.

Let's skip Ing's rules and New Zealand rules to go directly to the AGA rules, in 1991, that feature the simplicity of the chinese rules, and ask for just a little effort from the players : to give a prisonner when they pass and to have White make the last move.

The players usually don't care about rules. It is the go federations that must face this problem, and also the programmers.

Japanese-style rules have unsolvable theoretical problems, that occurs in one game out of 1000. A go federation can't seriously adopt them. The Nihon Ki-in has been criticised for doing so, and some players (Go Seigen) even demanded that they change that. Which was done in 1989... for the worse !
But since problems occur so rarely, the players themselves are perfectly ok with these rules.

Chinese style rules give no problems to any federation of programmer, but they strongly annoy the players in each and every game.

AGA rules seem to get the best of both worlds. Maybe the part that deals with life and death at the end (touching dead chains while handing prisoners) is too much. French and UK versions of the AGA rules have dropped this part.

RobertJasiek wrote:
goTony wrote:
When players have a contention at the club the consensus is play it out.

If playout is imagined or undone, this is possible.


Not always : if there is a seki of small value together with a four bent of higher value at the end of the game, for example, the four bent can only be killed sacrificing the seki.
Using imaginary play to prove that the four bent are dead, we come to the conclusion that the seki is dead in imagination, and that once the stones are removed, the intersections become imaginary territory for the opponent !

The 1949 japanese rules had an exception for this shape.
The 1989 japanese rules solved the problem introducing a new rule : ko fights are forbidden during imaginary play.
Chinese and area rulesets allow to play it out thanks to the use of area scoring, that permits real play-out.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: End of game under AGA rules vs .sgf files
Post #44 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:03 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
Pio2001 wrote:
During centuries, in China and japan, go was played using territory counting, with no official ruleset. When an ambiguous shape appears, the problem is solved asking for the judgement of a third person.

{snip}

Japanese-style rules have unsolvable theoretical problems, that occurs in one game out of 1000.


Actually, they do not. A number of Japanese style rule sets avoid those problems, including Double Button Go. :)

Quote:
A go federation can't seriously adopt them. The Nihon Ki-in has been criticised for doing so, and some players (Go Seigen) even demanded that they change that. Which was done in 1989... for the worse !


Indeed. :shock:

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: End of game under AGA rules vs .sgf files
Post #45 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:35 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 418
Liked others: 9
Was liked: 83
Rank: kgs 5 kyu
KGS: Pio2001
Bill Spight wrote:
Pio2001 wrote:
Japanese-style rules have unsolvable theoretical problems, that occurs in one game out of 1000.

Actually, they do not. A number of Japanese style rule sets avoid those problems, including Double Button Go. :)


Does my sentence become true if I replace "Japanese-style" by "territory scoring" :-?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: End of game under AGA rules vs .sgf files
Post #46 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 5:45 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
Pio2001 wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Pio2001 wrote:
Japanese-style rules have unsolvable theoretical problems, that occurs in one game out of 1000.

Actually, they do not. A number of Japanese style rule sets avoid those problems, including Double Button Go. :)


Does my sentence become true if I replace "Japanese-style" by "territory scoring" :-?


No. All theoretical problems with Japanese style or territory scoring have to do with kos and superkos. There are some repetitive situations, like the ko on a 1x2 board, which have no theoretical score, i.e., no non-arbitrary finite result, but that is true for all forms of go. Such positions aside, we have known since 1998 how to evaluate, and therefore score, all ko and superko positions. Not scoring points in seki is a quirk of the Japanese and Korean rules, but positions with potential points in seki arise more frequently than in one game in a thousand, I believe. :)

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: End of game under AGA rules vs .sgf files
Post #47 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:05 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
Pio2001 wrote:
During centuries, in China and japan, go was played using territory counting,


In China, scoring systems changed at different times and included stone scoring and area scoring.

Quote:
The first complete official ruleset was the japanese one of 1949.


It was a text maybe attempting to be complete, but of course was not complete.

Quote:
These rules are the ones that are the closest to the tradition of go,


1) Tradition changed. There has not been a single tradition.

2) My Japanese 2003 Rules are the closest to current Japanese professional tradition.

3) The quality of the Japanese 1949 Rules was similar to that of the World Amateur Go Championship Rules, whose failure to model tradition I have described here: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcflaw.html

Quote:
Then, in 1975, China came with a much simpler ruleset using area counting.


Not China, not Taiwan, but Ing in Taiwan.

Quote:
It is simple and clear,


No. I tried to be simple and clear. Much closer to simplicity and clarity, but still failing, are the New Zealand Rules. If you want it simple and clear, read the Simple Rules or the Tromp-Taylor Rules.

Quote:
it is extremely heavy for the players, who have to count all the area at the end of each game.


1) For positional judgement, TERRITORY counting or LOCAL area counting work during the endgame. Therefore, counting is NOT extremely heavy.

2) For counting of the score of the final position, there are several possible counting procedures, which include HALF counting procedures and TERRITORY counting procedures for area scoring. Therefore, it is NOT necessary to count ALL the area. The speed of such counting procedures is essentially the same as that for Japanese fill-in counting. Therefore, it is NOT extremely heavy.

Quote:
the simplicity of the chinese rules,


The Chinese Rules are not simple: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/c2002com.pdf

It is the area scoring core of the Chinese Rules that is simple.

Quote:
Japanese-style rules have unsolvable theoretical problems,


I have solved them: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html

Quote:
that occurs in one game out of 1000.


The theoretical problems of real Japanese Rules occur in EACH game. In practice, it is not that bad as long as one replaces application of the rules by their violation and uses verbal rules as a pretence of being an application of the written rules.

Quote:
The Nihon Ki-in has been criticised for doing so, and some players (Go Seigen) even demanded that they change that. Which was done in 1989... for the worse !


The 1989 Rules were a major theoretical step forwards but introduced new practical problems creating nonsense.

Quote:
But since problems occur so rarely,


The problems occur in EACH game. See http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html
It is only the pretence of using the written rules while in fact using verbal rules that prevents the problems from becoming apparent in each game.

Quote:
the players themselves are perfectly ok with these rules.


Rather many professional players using the 1989 Rules are ok with pretending to use them while in fact replacing them by verbal rules.

Quote:

Chinese style rules give no problems to any federation of programmer,


It depends on which ruleset you are speaking of. The Chinese Rules create problems. Other area scoring rulesets do not create problems.

Quote:
but they strongly annoy the players in each and every game.


When you speak of area scoring rules, this may be a matter of preference. For me, they provide great joy in each game.

Quote:
AGA rules seem to get the best of both worlds.


The Japanese fill-in counting is not "the best" of the territory scoring world because it is very error-prone.

Quote:
The 1989 japanese rules solved the problem introducing a new rule : ko fights are forbidden during imaginary play.


This is not the rule. Ko fights occur but their nature is very different:)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: End of game under AGA rules vs .sgf files
Post #48 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:27 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3374
RobertJasiek wrote:
Pio2001 wrote:
Then, in 1975, China came with a much simpler ruleset using area counting.


Not China, not Taiwan, but Ing in Taiwan.


I saw the 1975 Taiwan rules (in English) a couple of years later. It is true that Ing wrote them, but they were the official Taiwan rules. (The earlier Taiwan rules mentioned by Ikeda were different.)

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: End of game under AGA rules vs .sgf files
Post #49 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:44 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 418
Liked others: 9
Was liked: 83
Rank: kgs 5 kyu
KGS: Pio2001
RobertJasiek wrote:
Quote:
Japanese-style rules have unsolvable theoretical problems,

I have solved them: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html


Interesting rules !
If I understand them properly, there is no point in filling the teire if the players passed their turn, the empty intersection in the last ko, if not connected, is worth one point of territory, and if a four bent remains together with a small seki, the four bent, being proven dead, is removed while the seki remains on the goban ?

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group