It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:30 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #141 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:21 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
While looking for consistency and thinking more about the definitions in the Japanese Rules I noticed many situations where moves of the opponent can capture stones but they can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent. However, many of these situations are seki without territory.

The only situations where moves of the opponent can capture stones but they can newly form uncapturable stones that actually have territory is when the newly formed stones are uncapturable because they captured those same moves of the opponent which captured the original stones.
  • nakade (shown but not mentioned)
  • bent-4 in the corner
  • snapback
  • approach yose ko (teire not needed)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #142 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 9:21 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
While looking for consistency and thinking more about the definitions in the Japanese Rules I noticed many situations where moves of the opponent can capture stones but they can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent. However, many of these situations are seki without territory.

The only situations where moves of the opponent can capture stones but they can newly form uncapturable stones that actually have territory is when the newly formed stones are uncapturable because they captured those same moves of the opponent which captured the original stones.
  • nakade (shown but not mentioned)
  • bent-4 in the corner
  • snapback
  • approach yose ko (teire not needed)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #143 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 10:35 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 896
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 168
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
As you can see this alone position adresses number of issues and we can be sure that a common interpretation is quite impossible to reach.
Anyway any comment are welcome.


This game is played, nominally, with these rules by millions of people. If it was a thing that defending a liberty using double ko required the double ko to be resolved before the end of the game, then there would be many examples of exactly this. It is not at all an uncommon situation.

Anyone that wants to take a position on things like "it is impossible to agree", "most of us think", "the traditional view is" and "life and death example 1 is wrong", or really anything like that, should at least know what kind of evidence is needed to support such opinions.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #144 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:31 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 896
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 168
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
jann wrote:
kvasir wrote:
Claiming that this example is not ZERO, that the rules text is wrong and so on is bound to raise the question what this has to do with J89.
...
My opinion is simply that there is no reason to read this requirement into J89, when it fails spectacularly(?)

I think the traditional interpretation does NOT fail. It actually works well, and provides a robust L/D theory - no small feat - with clear reasoning of the "whys". And nobody said "the rules text is wrong". I (we) merely notice that the commentary on example 1 contradicts the actual rules text (7.1), especially in the English version (which is debatable OC but still). And for the above reason the rules text make more sense than the commentary here.


It is not a "traditional" interpretation it is just a first impression. Besides, it is hardly relevant if the tradition is rec.games.go unless you are willing to restate the reasoning, analyzes or whatever the evidence was. So far you are claiming many things beyond the first claim about what the enabling rule means, at least the first claim was something I could have accepted if I agreed. I just don't understand why you want to substantiate an opinion by claiming life and death example 1 is wrong but not actually try to substantiate this claim.

jann wrote:
kvasir wrote:
For example you said my explanation might be described as (always) "involving" new stones but that would still be a causal connection; this could also be called 'creating new stones as a side effect'.

The problem is "involve" does not make a clear, logically verifiable claim. If a player says that a capture "involves" a new stone on one-sided dame, how do you refute it? The capture cannot be performed without it if the defender is allowed to play freely - and no stone is ever enabled if he isn't.

I guess the "involve" approach would consist of playing out the capture, where both sides play for their original goal (maximize territory), and see what new stones were played in the vicinity. But playing out the capture already loses points, so it doesn't seem clear what logic would dictate the moves in this case. And I doubt this could compare to the clarity and robustness of the "made possible" approach.


You said it only "involves" the stones. What I said was that the capture could not be made without allowing these stones to be played. I don't understand why I get this "tradition" thing leveled at it, especially when the tradition is rec.games.go with only assurances that everyone agreed. I also explained how in this position some of the stones played could be seen as being on the boarder of white and black, this is of because black is capturable and there is therefore no one sided dame. If black was not capturable then this argument was not meant to apply. I might try to explain this again later.

I think you are taking something that was a reply to a question that was something like this "what makes these points different from points that can't count as 'enabling'" and trying to turn it on its head.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #145 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:47 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
--Example 7 defines bent-4 in the corner as being living stones, even ...

Bent-four-in-the-corner is

NOT "defined" alive

within J89!!! NOWHERE.
Neither it is "defined" dead anywhere.
Everything depends on the outcome of the position's assessment, utilising "hypothetical play".

BTW:
L&D Example 7-1 shows a position, where the single bent-four-in-the-corner is assessed "dead".
L&D Example 7-2 has the bent-four-in-the-corner combined with a mannen-ko, and is also assessed "dead".
L&D Examples 19 and 20 show positions, where the bent-four-in-the-corner is assessed "alive".

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #146 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:34 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
kvasir wrote:
It is not a "traditional" interpretation it is just a first impression.

I guess you oppose that label as somehow giving more credit to "made possible" than it deserves. Any name is ok (old/usenet/whatever interpretation). And it likely has something to do with first impressions (enable = make able, make possible and allow).

The things that support this are the English text, its convincing logic, and the ease and clarity of application (both "is it capturable without the new stone?" "could the new stone have been played anyway?" are directly provable by sequences where the players' objectives are clear).

Quote:
You said it only "involves" the stones. What I said was that the capture could not be made without allowing these stones to be played. ... I also explained how in this position some of the stones played could be seen as being on the boarder of white and black, this is of because black is capturable and there is therefore no one sided dame.

I think "(necessarily) involve" also implies that the capture is not possible without the new stones - I understood you meant this. But this seems harder to verify with one-sided dame (without the "was it possible anyway?" check which you refuse), since hypothetical play is global. You will probably change this (a painful difference to J89) and define some kind of locality (though one-sided dame might appear near as well) - with your border idea.

My doubts are about clear objectives for players in hypothetical sequences, and the missing definition for locality (assuming any new stone in the locality counts). Also note that in torazu3 the single stone can be captured WITHOUT penalty or compensation - this casts objective doubts on attempts to make it alive.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #147 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 11:55 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1226
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 57
Rank: 1d
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]
What is the status of the white marked stones?

CDavies7M, I did not see your interpretation concerning this position above. I believe you will conclude that the marked white stones are dead but I am not quite sure.
Could you show us your analysis?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #148 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 2:19 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Cassandra wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
--Example 7 defines bent-4 in the corner as being living stones, even ...

Bent-four-in-the-corner is
NOT "defined" alive
within J89!!! NOWHERE.
Neither it is "defined" dead anywhere.
Everything depends on the outcome of the position's assessment, utilising "hypothetical play".
If you can't be bothered to read the rules then at least don't make stuff. It just looks bad. Your statement is directly contradicted by what the Japanese Rules Committee wrote. If you just read the Preamble and the Summary of the Revision then your misconceptions would be cleared up.

By the way, even without reading it should be clear to you that your position is wrong because it fails to actually work in some positions, like the one in Example 18. There is consistency, just read to find it. I'll explain.

Before the Revision, there was a ruling that defined stones having Bent-4 in the corner as being dead. Do you disagree?

Then the Committee took over the Rules and Revised them. The Committee explicitly explains in the Summary of the Revision that the entire point of the Revision was to provide definition (meikaku ka 明確化) and theorization (riron ka 理論化) of the rationality (gori sei 合理性) in the existing Japanese Rules. Do you disagree?

In the Summary and in the actual Example of Bent-4 in the corner, the Committee specifically states that the Example is theorizing the reason for the ruling. Do you disagree?

If the words of the Committee are actually read, I can't see any possibility of disagreement. The Examples in the Revision merely provide definitions and explain the rationality in the previous rulings. The Japanese Rules still have rulings that define the L&D status of positions. No where do the Rules state that so-called hypothetical-play is part of the actual game of Go. It is merely a tool for showing the rationality and consistency of the rulings.

----------

Cassandra wrote:
BTW:
L&D Example 7-1 shows a position, where the single bent-four-in-the-corner is assessed "dead".
L&D Example 7-2 has the bent-four-in-the-corner combined with a mannen-ko, and is also assessed "dead".
L&D Examples 19 and 20 show positions, where the bent-four-in-the-corner is assessed "alive".
Do you know what a ruling is? It defines the status of one game position. It doesn't define the status for different game positions. Examples 19 and 20 are different positions because the outside liberties are different. This is the entire point of Examples 18-20, they how out the liberties change the status.

By the way, did you bother to read the caption to Example 7? It clearly shows that the Example provides a definition that is consistent with the theorized rationale as the Committee stated.

黒三子は「活き石」であり、白七子は「死に石」である。
1図、2図は白七子が「死に石」である理由。

The first line defines the L&D status.
The second line refers to the diagrams which show the rationale.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #149 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 2:29 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
* snip *

Do you actually care what a "definition" is?

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #150 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 2:38 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Cassandra wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
* snip *

Do you actually care what a "definition" is?
Yes. Did you get a copy of the Advanced Learners dictionary yet?
If you did you might see something similar to my understanding of a definition: a definition is a description of the nature of something (OED). In this context, a definition is a description of the L&D status of a board position. The Revision to the Rules provides example board positions and describes the L&D status of those positions. They are explicitly stated to be definitions of the prior Japanese Rulings. These example board positions are definitions.

Do you actually care what 明確化 is?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #151 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 2:44 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
Cassandra wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
* snip *

Do you actually care what a "definition" is?
Yes. Did you get a copy of the Advanced Learners dictionary yet?
* snip *

Example for a definition:
String = a set of stones of the same colour, which are solidly connected to each other along the lines of the board.

Example for a result of the application of a given procedure:
This string is considered not fulfilling the definition of "alive".

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #152 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 2:49 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Cassandra wrote:
String = a set of stones of the same colour, which are solidly connected to each other along the lines of the board.
I don't know why you are defining words when we are talking about definitions of things other than words (ie board positions). A bit irrelevant but OK.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #153 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 3:42 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
Cassandra wrote:
String = a set of stones of the same colour, which are solidly connected to each other along the lines of the board.
I don't know why you are defining words when we are talking about definitions of things other than words (ie board positions). A bit irrelevant but OK.

In my Go world, "string" is a (part of a) "board position". Not in yours???

And I don't think that you want to TALK. You want to SPEAK, letting others know YOUR opinion.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #154 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 4:00 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Cassandra wrote:
And I don't think that you want to TALK. You want to SPEAK, letting others know YOUR opinion.
It's not my opinion. It's Kano Yoshinori's opinion. It's Kudo Norio's opinion. And the opinions of Sakai Takeshi, Oeda Yusuke, Saijo Masataka, Goro Fujita, Shinoda Shigehito, and Shigerushi Hata.

They wrote that the Revision provides definitions. Not me. I just read it.
They never wrote anything to suggest that so-called hypothetical play must be used to determine L&D status. I recognize that fact.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #155 Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2021 4:02 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]
What is the status of the white marked stones?

CDavies7M, I did not see your interpretation concerning this position above. I believe you will conclude that the marked white stones are dead but I am not quite sure.
Could you show us your analysis?
I'll rely on Fairbairn's translation.
Stones which cannot be captured by moves of the opponent, or stones which, even if they can be captured, can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent, are called 'live stones.' Stones other than live stones are called 'dead stones.'
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X 1 2 X X X -. X X O . 3 5 -. X X O 7 X X -. X X . X X X |
$$ | X X @ O O O O -X X @ O O O O -X X @ O O O O -X X . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X X X -. O X X X X X -. O X X X X X -. O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X -4 O X O O O X -O O X O O O X -O O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X -X O X O O . X -. O X O O . X -. O X O O B X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X -X O X O O O X -6 O X O O O X -O O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . -X O X O O O . -. O X O O O . -. O X O O O B |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

The 5 White stones on the upper side are alive because even though they can be captured by Black, they can newly form stones :w4: and :w6: that cannot be captured by Black. Moves like :w4: are not uncapturable unless a move like :b1: reduces liberties in capturing. The 5 stones are capturable and it is those capturable stones that are the ones that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent because it is those stones ( :ws: ) that reduce Black's liberties such that the uncapturable stones can be formed. And without :ws: , Black can just connect.

Unlike other people, I'm not going to pretend that :w4: and :w6: used to show that the 5 stones are alive can somehow be used to prove that the different and separate group of 11 White stones alive. Those 11 stones do not contribute anything to the formation of the new uncapturable stones. The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all.

----------

I haven't spent much time looking at the other seki collapse position that was presented, but I believe I have a similar position there (also against the position of others).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #156 Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2021 8:47 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
Unlike other people, I'm not going to pretend that :w4: and :w6: used to show that the 5 stones are alive can somehow be used to prove that the different and separate group of 11 White stones alive. Those 11 stones do not contribute anything to the formation of the new uncapturable stones. The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all.

Although I am a fan of "THEREAFTER" (rebirth is only possible AFTER death, not before), I also sympathise with jann's interpretation.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | ? ? X X X X X |
$$ | ? ? X O O O X |
$$ | ? ? X O O . X |
$$ | ? ? X O O O X |
$$ | ? ? X O O O . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

Neither does Black control the lower right part of the board (any move there is suicidal; consequently, he cannot remove White's stones), ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X ? ? ? ? |
$$ | X O X ? ? ? ? |
$$ | X O X ? ? ? ? |
$$ | X O X ? ? ? ? |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

... nor does he control the upper left one (as we know, he cannot remove ALL of White's stones).

White does not control these areas, too, thus the entire board is a large seki.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X X . . X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | X O Y Y Y Y Y |
$$ | . O Y O O O Y |
$$ | . O Y O O . Y |
$$ | X O Y O O O Y |
$$ | X O Y O O O . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

As it seems, the L&D-status of White's stones inside a temporary seki at one side of Black's :bt: string depends on the L&D-status of her stones outside that temporary seki on the other side of Black's :bt: string.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #157 Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2021 11:26 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1226
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 57
Rank: 1d
CDavis7M wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]
What is the status of the white marked stones?

CDavies7M, I did not see your interpretation concerning this position above. I believe you will conclude that the marked white stones are dead but I am not quite sure.
Could you show us your analysis?
I'll rely on Fairbairn's translation.
Stones which cannot be captured by moves of the opponent, or stones which, even if they can be captured, can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent, are called 'live stones.' Stones other than live stones are called 'dead stones.'
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X 1 2 X X X -. X X O . 3 5 -. X X O 7 X X -. X X . X X X |
$$ | X X @ O O O O -X X @ O O O O -X X @ O O O O -X X . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X X X -. O X X X X X -. O X X X X X -. O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X -4 O X O O O X -O O X O O O X -O O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X -X O X O O . X -. O X O O . X -. O X O O B X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X -X O X O O O X -6 O X O O O X -O O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . -X O X O O O . -. O X O O O . -. O X O O O B |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

The 5 White stones on the upper side are alive because even though they can be captured by Black, they can newly form stones :w4: and :w6: that cannot be captured by Black. Moves like :w4: are not uncapturable unless a move like :b1: reduces liberties in capturing. The 5 stones are capturable and it is those capturable stones that are the ones that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent because it is those stones ( :ws: ) that reduce Black's liberties such that the uncapturable stones can be formed. And without :ws: , Black can just connect.

Unlike other people, I'm not going to pretend that :w4: and :w6: used to show that the 5 stones are alive can somehow be used to prove that the different and separate group of 11 White stones alive. Those 11 stones do not contribute anything to the formation of the new uncapturable stones. The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all.

----------

I haven't spent much time looking at the other seki collapse position that was presented, but I believe I have a similar position there (also against the position of others).


Seeing your argument "The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all" I can propose another example for which this argument does not exist:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | X X X . O . X . X |
$$ | O O O O O X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X Q Q Q . |
$$ | . . . . X Q . Q Q |
$$ | X X X X X Q Q Q . |
$$ | O O O O O X X X X |
$$ | X X X . O . X . X |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]
In this position black can choose to capture either the white stones in the upper left corner or the white stones in the bottom left corner (like in the previous position) but here (unlike the previous position) black must always BEGIN by capturing the white marked stones.
Do you conclude to the same conclusion i.e. white marked stone are dead (though you cannot capture them without allowing white to play new uncapturable stones) ?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #158 Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2021 11:59 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
The 5 White stones on the upper side are alive because even though they can be captured by Black, they can newly form stones :w4: and :w6: that cannot be captured by Black. Moves like :w4: are not uncapturable unless a move like :b1: reduces liberties in capturing. The 5 stones are capturable and it is those capturable stones that are the ones that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent because it is those stones ( :ws: ) that reduce Black's liberties such that the uncapturable stones can be formed.
Seeing your argument "The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all" I can propose another example for which this argument does not exist...
Note my point that I underlined above.

Let's try to capture the 9 White stones. Indeed there is a new uncapturable stone :ws: . But does a new uncapturable stone mean anything by itself? I don't think so because in an actual game-play position, new uncapturable stones can always be played somewhere on the board (filling dame, territory, etc).
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X -X X X . O . X . X
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X
$$ | X X X X X Q Q Q .-X X X X X Q Q Q 3-X X X X X . . . X
$$ | . . . . X Q . Q Q-. . . . X Q 5 Q Q-. . . . X . X . .
$$ | X X X X X Q Q Q 1-X X X X X Q Q Q X-X X X X X . . . X
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X
$$ | X X X 2 O . X . X-. 4 . O O . X . X-. @ . O O . X . X
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

Backing up, the real question is whether it is these 9 White stones that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent -- is there some game-mechanic in the Game of Go that gives those 9 stones the ability to form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent. Or is it actually some other stones that already have that ability give the game mechanics?

Let's see what happens when Black tries to prevent the formation of the new uncapturable stones with :b3: . If Black tries, :wc: will reduce his liberties of :bc: and White can capture with :w6: . So yes, those 9 White stones are living stones because they contribute to the formation of the new uncapturable stones.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X
$$ | X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .
$$ | . . . . X O . O O-. . . . X O . O W-. . . . X O . O O
$$ | X X X X X O O O 1-X X X X X W W W B-X X X X X O O O .
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O B B B X-O O O O O . . . .
$$ | X X X 2 O . X . X-. 3 5 O O 4 X 6 X-. X X O O O . O .
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

This is easy to confirm. Consider if :wc: did not have the ability to reduce the liberty of :bc: . In this case, :w6: does not capture Black's stones because :bc: would have a liberty were it not for :wc: . :w6: cannot even be played, letting :b7: capture White, preventing the formation of new uncapturable stones.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X
$$ | X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .
$$ | . . . . X O . O O-. . . . X O . O O-. . . . X O . O O
$$ | X X X X X W O O 1-X X X X X W O O X-X X X X X W O O X
$$ | O O O O O B X X X-O O O O O B X X X-. . . . . B X X X
$$ | X X X 2 O . X . X-7 3 5 O O 4 X 6 X-X X X . . . X . X
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

The 9 stones are live. This is similar to Example 4.

----------

Here we can see that :wt: have no ability to form new uncapturable stones. There's no game mechanic that let's them contribute to the formation. It is the other White stones that already have that ability. They are already alive when considered separately.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #159 Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:49 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
We can do the same confirmation with the other position. Is it the 5 White stones that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent? Or is it the 1 White stone that can do that.

What if Black connects the ko in an attempt to prevent White from forming an uncapturable stone by retaking the ko. Normally this just ends in Black being captured.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ :w4: pass, :b7: pass
$$ ----------------------
$$ | O . O . X 2 3 O O . O-O . O 8 X 6 X O O . O-O . O O . O . O O . O
$$ | O O O X O X O O O O O-O O O X 5 X O O O O O-O O O . . . O O O O O
$$ | X X X O 1 O O . O . .-X X X O X O O . O . .-X X X O . O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

But what if the stones :wt: do not contribute to reducing the liberties of :bt: ? Then :b7: is not suicide and :b9: can capture. But that is not the point. The question is: can Black can prevent :w8: from being uncapturable even if :wt: do not reduce liberties? No (this should be the case because their L&D status is independent). Even in a situation where :wt: contribute nothing, White can still form an uncapturable stone :w8: even in the situation where Black connects. Because White can form uncapturable stones even if the 5 White stone's contribute nothing, then it is not the 5 White stones in the corner that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent. Those 5 White stones are dead.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ :w4: pass
$$ ----------------------
$$ | Q . Q . Y 2 3 O O . O-Q . Q 7 Y 6 X O O . O-. 9 . X Y O 8 O O . O
$$ | Q Q Q Y O Y O O O O O-Q Q Q Y 5 Y O O O O O-. . . Y X Y O O O O O
$$ | X X X O 1 O O . O . .-X X X O X O O . O . .-X X X O X O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .[/go]


----------

Contrast this to the other position, where Black actually can prevent uncapturable stones if the marked stones did not contribute to liberty reduction. This different shows which stones actually can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent and which cannot.
CDavis7M wrote:
Consider if :wc: did not have the ability to reduce the liberty of :bc: . In this case, :w6: does not capture Black's stones because :bc: would have a liberty were it not for :wc: . :w6: cannot even be played, letting :b7: capture White, preventing the formation of new uncapturable stones.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X
$$ | X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .
$$ | . . . . X O . O O-. . . . X O . O O-. . . . X O . O O
$$ | X X X X X W O O 1-X X X X X W O O X-X X X X X W O O X
$$ | O O O O O B X X X-O O O O O B X X X-. . . . . B X X X
$$ | X X X 2 O . X . X-7 3 5 O O 4 X 6 X-X X X . . . X . X
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #160 Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:12 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1226
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 57
Rank: 1d
CDavis7M wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
The 5 White stones on the upper side are alive because even though they can be captured by Black, they can newly form stones :w4: and :w6: that cannot be captured by Black. Moves like :w4: are not uncapturable unless a move like :b1: reduces liberties in capturing. The 5 stones are capturable and it is those capturable stones that are the ones that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent because it is those stones ( :ws: ) that reduce Black's liberties such that the uncapturable stones can be formed.
Seeing your argument "The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all" I can propose another example for which this argument does not exist...
Note my point that I underlined above.

Let's try to capture the 9 White stones. Indeed there is a new uncapturable stone :ws: . But does a new uncapturable stone mean anything by itself? I don't think so because in an actual game-play position, new uncapturable stones can always be played somewhere on the board (filling dame, territory, etc).
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X -X X X . O . X . X
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X
$$ | X X X X X Q Q Q .-X X X X X Q Q Q 3-X X X X X . . . X
$$ | . . . . X Q . Q Q-. . . . X Q 5 Q Q-. . . . X . X . .
$$ | X X X X X Q Q Q 1-X X X X X Q Q Q X-X X X X X . . . X
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X
$$ | X X X 2 O . X . X-. 4 . O O . X . X-. @ . O O . X . X
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

Backing up, the real question is whether it is these 9 White stones that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent -- is there some game-mechanic in the Game of Go that gives those 9 stones the ability to form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent. Or is it actually some other stones that already have that ability give the game mechanics?

Let's see what happens when Black tries to prevent the formation of the new uncapturable stones with :b3: . If Black tries, :wc: will reduce his liberties of :bc: and White can capture with :w6: . So yes, those 9 White stones are living stones because they contribute to the formation of the new uncapturable stones.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X
$$ | X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .
$$ | . . . . X O . O O-. . . . X O . O W-. . . . X O . O O
$$ | X X X X X O O O 1-X X X X X W W W B-X X X X X O O O .
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O B B B X-O O O O O . . . .
$$ | X X X 2 O . X . X-. 3 5 O O 4 X 6 X-. X X O O O . O .
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

This is easy to confirm. Consider if :wc: did not have the ability to reduce the liberty of :bc: . In this case, :w6: does not capture Black's stones because :bc: would have a liberty were it not for :wc: . :w6: cannot even be played, letting :b7: capture White, preventing the formation of new uncapturable stones.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X-X X X . O . X . X
$$ | O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X-O O O O O X X X X
$$ | X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .-X X X X X O O O .
$$ | . . . . X O . O O-. . . . X O . O O-. . . . X O . O O
$$ | X X X X X W O O 1-X X X X X W O O X-X X X X X W O O X
$$ | O O O O O B X X X-O O O O O B X X X-. . . . . B X X X
$$ | X X X 2 O . X . X-7 3 5 O O 4 X 6 X-X X X . . . X . X
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

The 9 stones are live. This is similar to Example 4.

----------

Here we can see that :wt: have no ability to form new uncapturable stones. There's no game mechanic that let's them contribute to the formation. It is the other White stones that already have that ability. They are already alive when considered separately.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]




Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Diag 1
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Diag 2
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | X X X . O . X . X |
$$ | O O O O O X X X X |
$$ | X X X X X Q Q Q . |
$$ | . . . . X Q . Q Q |
$$ | X X X X X Q Q Q . |
$$ | O O O O O X X X X |
$$ | X X X . O . X . X |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]


Let's compare theses two positions.
In Diag1 you consider that the marked stones are dead because they have "no ability to form new uncapturable stones".
But in Diag2 you consider that the marked stones are alive because they have this ability to form new uncapturable stones.
This result is strange for me and I have to work harder in order to really understand.

My view is the following : for a go player looking for the status of a group, the sequence itself is not relevant. What is relevant is the final position reached after the chosen sequence. In this FINAL position the player can look at the captured stones as well as the new uncapturable stones created and decide whether a group of stones is alive or not.

Let's call A and B the two unmarked white groups of stones in Diag 1 or 2 and let's call C the white marked group in Diag 1 or 2
In both diagram:
1) the three A, B, C groups are capturable
2) the two A, B groups cannot be simultaneously captured
3) Black can capture A and C but in this case uncapturable stones are created towards B
4) Black can capture B and C but in this case uncapturable stones are created towards A
What difference you see between these two diagrams for a player looking at the status of these groups?

BTW what is the status of the two unmarked white groups in Diag 2 ?

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

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