It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:37 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #121 Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:57 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1236
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 57
Rank: 1d
jann wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
I agree completly with your text but the wording you proposed does not look perfect.

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

What is the status of the white marked stone? No doubt it is dead but what about your wording, strictly speaking ?

Yes, this is exactly why I suggested adding the two B stones to your earlier position, to ensure B will have the choice even with W starting. B will find it hard to prove that W could have played either spot, for equal consequence, just only on B's choice (probably not impossible to prove, but still not nice).

IMO the real issue here is that J89 chose to formulate the rule around new STONES. It would be probably more robust if the rule itself would have been formulated differently:

  • A string is dead if the opponent can take control (occupy or surround by uncapturable stones) of all its intersections, without allowing the player to control another intersection in exchange, that he couldn't have controlled otherwise.

This would probably be similar to your proposal - and interestingly, this would flip the ruling in lightvector's position:

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


Oops, I did not expect you go that far because now it looks like my proposal!

When you say:
"without allowing the player to control another intersection in exchange"
it seems that if the player can TURN a group of stones to be uncapturable then this player was allowed to CONTROL another intersection doesn't it?

Anyway, even if you do not go so far, I agree with your approach which is quite similar if not identical to mine. Do not forget that if the differences concerned only unfinished positions then the final result maybe always the same.

BTW, I agree that an empty intersection, surrounded by uncapturable STONES, is a controlled intersection, but it is not true that a STRING of empty intersections, surrounded by uncapturable STONES, are controlled intersections. Here again the wording has to be chosen carefully.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #122 Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:25 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
...but it is not true that a STRING of empty intersections, surrounded by uncapturable STONES, are controlled intersections.

As long as the "string" is not large enough to contain a permanent group of the opponent, it is of course controlled by the player.

_________________
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 #123 Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 9:04 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 905
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 168
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | . X X O . .
$$ | O X X O . .
$$ | X O O O . .
$$ | X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]


For me it does not matter if the result is seki or +3 for black because in any case white will continue the game. See on the subject the post https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=267480#p267480
BTW I prefer the result +3 for black but a seki doesn't harm.


I replied that ZERO is a special value in such positions but CGT/Shuwa (3 points for white) requires that we compute a value for every such position, it is attracted as an idea but impractical. When you say it is +3 for black that is something else, you are claiming the white stone is dead. Let's not muddy the water by pretending that is any different than claiming is +9 for white.

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.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Positions where a teire move is necessary in one interpretation and not in an other interpretation are more problematic because the results of the game are really different.


'teire' is a serious matter for sure but this thread has degenerated.

jann wrote:
[...]the written rule clearly require some kind of causal connection between the new stones and the capture (or the captured string at least).


Requiring a causal connection is a very weak requirement. 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'. I don't think it is really the causal connection that you want to require, as far as I understand I think you want to require the 'enabled' stones to be played were the opposing color could prevent them from being played.

Robert Jaseki has offered positions were it is rather nonsensical because the 'new stones' need to be played in such a way as to fill an eye. It also appears to contradict multiple examples in J89.

My opinion is simply that there is no reason to read this requirement into J89, when it fails spectacularly(?) we should realize that this is not the meaning of J89. Just to be clear, I think the J89 authors left the 'enable' business mostly undefined. Trying to be very strict about it is just not going to work.

jann wrote:
Still, I yet to see any other interpretation that would be simply and logically evaluatable in all examples, without being clearly abusable in other examples. If you know such, please do share.


In my opinion, going from 'enable' that is mostly undefined to 'enable' that is usable in any position is likely not going to be identifiable as J89. Take J2003 for example, a side from many of the most critical sentences being undecipherable, the whole framework is really something completely different from J89. I am more interested in workable understanding than something that doesn't fail in wild situations.

I gave an example of how many of the intersection in the original position (this thread started when lightvector asked a question about a specific position) would be placed differently in relation to the boundary between living and dead groups depending on the outcome of status confirmation, then I argued that at least some of these points should count as valid for 'new stones' basically because black captures something but loses control over the boundary. I think I used the phrase "new ground". You called this a 'locality hack' that 'involves' new stones instead of actually enabling them, I'd maybe call it something else (boundary hack?), and it is sure to fail on many positions (like everything else). While this might not be easy to apply to every imaginable situation, I think it can be a workable explanation for many normal situations. I'd give it more thought but I don't have time for the kind of wild positions this sub-topic generates every time someone states something that is directly applicable to life and death confirmation and can actually be tested.

Also why engage in detailed analysis of explanations and interpretations in every thread in the Go Rules forum?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #124 Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 9:27 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 905
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 168
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
CDavis7M wrote:
kvasir wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
And it's nice to talk about things that are not the rules, but what does your dictionary say about 確認? Because my dictionary defines it using 争い and 疑い.


Common! It is 'confirming' same as in 'confirming a hotel booking', 'acknowledge' as in 'acknowledge a receipt' and so forth.
Even these situations involve something unknown -- whether the reservation was actually booked or not. And even then, it's not like the hotel can't become overbooked. Some confirmation that is.



You are basing a rather complicated argument on the sole foundation that the word 確認/确认 allows you to EXCLUDE anything that is already known from consideration. Lot of people know what it means, this is not some advanced vocabulary with rich and complicated nuances. The two players are just pointing out groups that need to be removed from the board and identifying seki. There is absolutely nothing implied about the method or process, except maybe that it doesn't need many words.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #125 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:31 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
kvasir wrote:
You are basing a rather complicated argument on the sole foundation that the word 確認/确认 allows you to EXCLUDE anything that is already known from consideration. Lot of people know what it means, this is not some advanced vocabulary with rich and complicated nuances. The two players are just pointing out groups that need to be removed from the board and identifying seki. There is absolutely nothing implied about the method or process, except maybe that it doesn't need many words.
It's not that there are nuances. It's that some interpretations ignore the meaning of the word. And I'm definitely not excluding known things. The known status is in the consideration, it just isn't the confirmation itself.

For example, in the position being discussed, when White captures the ko back and then captures another Black stone, these newly placed White stones can have an uncapturable shape along with the White group with 2 eyes. So that group with 2 eyes is being considered. But it is the fact that White can capture Black to form an uncapturable shape that confirms White's living status. Directly adding stones to the group with 2 eyes to create uncapturable stones confirms nothing about L&D. Capturing stones to create the uncapturable shape is what confirms living status.

The fact that the 1 White stone can be captured and then can go back and capture the Black stones to create an uncapturable shape, all without the 5 White stones in the corner being captured, confirms that the 5 stones are dead -- any of the various forms of uncapturable stones that could be formed can be formed from the capture of the 1 stone without the 5 stones being captured.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #126 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 5:02 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1236
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 57
Rank: 1d
kvasir wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ -------------
$$ | . X X O . .
$$ | O X X O . .
$$ | X O O O . .
$$ | X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]


For me it does not matter if the result is seki or +3 for black because in any case white will continue the game. See on the subject the post https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=267480#p267480
BTW I prefer the result +3 for black but a seki doesn't harm.


I replied that ZERO is a special value in such positions but CGT/Shuwa (3 points for white) requires that we compute a value for every such position, it is attracted as an idea but impractical. When you say it is +3 for black that is something else, you are claiming the white stone is dead. Let's not muddy the water by pretending that is any different than claiming is +9 for white.

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.


When we try to apply the article 7.1 of J89 to the diagram above (example 1 of the rule) we all agree that the four black stones are dead but it it is not clear what is the status of the one white stone. Some of us undertand it is dead and others understand it is alive. In addition, even with the same result, different reasonning are applied that prove that the wording of J89 is ambiguous.
In this context I am happy to see the explanation given by all of us in order to have a better understanding of the problem.
BTW I understood you consider the white stone being alive (I know it is what is said explicitly in the example 1 of the rule but you know also that some of us consider it is not really consistant with article 7.1). OC a new stone with no relation with the group of stone under consideration has not to be taken into account. How do you define when a new stone has some relation with the group under consideration? This question is essential to be able to give the status of a slightly different position with is not mentionned through the examples of the rule.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #127 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 5:11 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 905
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 168
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
I just don't understand the argument. You said it had to do with the meaning of 'confirming', 'uncertainty' and other words.

CDavis7M wrote:
The fact that the 1 White stone can be captured and then can go back and capture the Black stones to create an uncapturable shape, all without the 5 White stones in the corner being captured, confirms that the 5 stones are dead -- any of the various forms of uncapturable stones that could be formed can be formed from the capture of the 1 stone without the 5 stones being captured.


If I were to say that this does instead confirm that the black stones are dead. Would that mean the 1 stone was dead because there is nothing to 'confirm' about the 1 stone? Everything about the dead black stones is confirmed, therefore nothing left to confirm about the 1 stone.

I suppose you would not agree that this is a similar argument.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #128 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 5:21 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 905
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 168
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
When we try to apply the article 7.1 of J89 to the diagram above (example 1 of the rule) we all agree that the four black stones are dead but it it is not clear what is the status of the one white stone.

I don't remember agreeing that the black stones are dead, just that it is interesting that we get the same result of the game if we consider black and white alive as if we consider them dead. It is not at all clear why you are claiming that black is dead but maybe not white. Why would it not be the same? Almost the same thing happens when you capture either black or white.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #129 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:19 am 
Oza

Posts: 3647
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4626
Would someone be willing to try to explain to me what this and similar threads are actually about?

As far as I can tell, almost everyone agrees that the Japanese rules are, in a theoretical sense, a mess. But, at the same time, almost everyone outside China agrees that Japanese rules in a practical sense are just fine.

The argument seems to be about the confirmation phase. But I have never (I think) come across a single case where a confirmation phase has ever been needed. But if such a case were to arise in Japanese pro play, I find it very hard to imagine that anything said here (or by Robert Jasiek - I'm puzzled by his absence here) would influence the decision made by a Japanese referee. I find it equally hard to imagine the rules being changed because of anything said here.

I understand that "beasts" are interesting to those of a mathematical bent, but I don't see that we are talking about beasts here. It seems like going to the zoo to see the animals and ending up arguing about the quality of the hamburger in the cafe.

On the (safe, I think) assumption that it's not a case of trolling, and the hopeful assumption that it's not a case of an egos ladder competition, what is it all about. My tentative conclusion is that, to continue the zoological analogy, it's just a case of passing the time by pulling the legs off spiders.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #130 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:27 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
When we try to apply the article 7.1 of J89 to the diagram above (example 1 of the rule) we all agree that the four black stones are dead

Is this a typo? IMO B is alive, since it is partially reestablishable.

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.

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.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #131 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:30 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
John Fairbairn wrote:
As far as I can tell, almost everyone agrees that the Japanese rules are, in a theoretical sense, a mess.
...
But I have never (I think) come across a single case where a confirmation phase has ever been needed.

I think J89 is much better than usually claimed, many problems (like with double kos) can be explained as simple misunderstandings. And it is oc true that after kyu levels there are almost no disputes, so just scoring the board on agreement is nearly 100% as a rule.

But Go has a strange kind of completeness. Once you make an actual rule with verifiable claims and consequences, it is usually possible to create an artificial counterexample. The rules game is similarly interesting as the real one. Why people do jigsaw puzzles?


Last edited by jann on Tue Dec 14, 2021 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #132 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:38 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1236
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 57
Rank: 1d
kvasir wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
When we try to apply the article 7.1 of J89 to the diagram above (example 1 of the rule) we all agree that the four black stones are dead but it it is not clear what is the status of the one white stone.

I don't remember agreeing that the black stones are dead, just that it is interesting that we get the same result of the game if we consider black and white alive as if we consider them dead. It is not at all clear why you are claiming that black is dead but maybe not white. Why would it not be the same? Almost the same thing happens when you capture either black or white.


Yes Kvasir OC a typing error. Sorry.
The four black stones are alive. The issue is only on white stone.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #133 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:59 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 905
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 168
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
John Fairbairn wrote:
Would someone be willing to try to explain to me what this and similar threads are actually about?


Usually it starts as a serious discussion about something, like this thread, but it usually degenerates into discussion about hypotheticals. After that it seems to really be anyone's guess what it is about. Someone was bound to bring up 'trolling'.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #134 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:25 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1236
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 57
Rank: 1d
As far as I am concerned I consider J89 being a good rule which is perfect in practice in almost 100% of the games but that does not prevent me from liking discussion on beast positions. BTW seeing the difficulty to find a wording corresponding to my own interpretation I consider, as Jann said, that J89 is much better than usually claimed.

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


Coming back to this interesting position it appears to me as a perfect (?) beast (thank you lightvector!) because this position adresses a number of difficulties with the wording of the rule I will try to summarize:

Let's take the main variation in order to try and find the status of the 5 white stones:

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


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O . O . X . . O O . O
$$ | O O O X a X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O X O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
Seeing this position it is clear that black has taken a ko and white need a pass-for-ko before being allowed to retake the ko at "a". Now seeing some previous comment in this thread, we can also observe that, in order to try and capture the 5 white stone, black begins by taking another white stone for wich the status is unkown though black is not looking at the status of this white stone.

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


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O . O . X O b O O . O
$$ | O O O X a X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O X O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
After the move :w2: the position has completly changed:
everybody can see that a ko has been created in "b" but we can also see that "a" is no more a ko because a white move here will take two black stones. Now a question arises : have now white to use a pass-for-ko if this ko reappears in the future?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O . O . X O 3 O O . O
$$ | O O O X a X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O X O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O . O . X . X O O . O
$$ | O O O X a X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O X O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
After :b3: "a" becomes again a ko. Has this ko to be considered the same ko or is it a new ko?
If it is a new ko then white can immediatly take at "a" because no pass-for-ko is needed for a new ko.
If it is the same ko the situation is still not obvious : we are in a double ko situation and we know that, strictly speaking, the rule does not handle correctly a double ko situation. Is it really the intention of the rule to prevent white to play one of the two ko in such situation?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B :w4: pass for ko at "a"
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O 7 O 5 X 8 X O O . O
$$ | O O O X 6 X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O X O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B :w4: pass for ko at "a"
$$ -----------------------
$$ | . X . X X 8 . O O . O
$$ | . . . X 6 . O O O O O
$$ | X X X O . O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

In this final position can we consider the capture of the 5 white stones has enabled to play :w6: and :w8: ? In any case, I mean even if black is not trying to kill the 5 white stones, white is able to play the uncapturable stones at :w6: and :w8:

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.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #135 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:56 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
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.
I think you have presented the issue and questions well. A few comments below.

----------

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O . O . X O b O O . O
$$ | O O O X a X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O X O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
After the move :w2: the position has completly changed:
everybody can see that a ko has been created in "b" but we can also see that "a" is no more a ko because a white move here will take two black stones. Now a question arises : have now white to use a pass-for-ko if this ko reappears in the future?
White would not have to pass. White must pass to retake a ko. But the Japanese Rules define a ko as a position where stones can continue to be captured and recaptured. A position where recapture would cause the opponent's stones to be taken off the board such that your stones become uncapturable does not require a pass. This is shown in Example 8 of the Japanese Rules.

黒4 パス, 白5 九子取り上げる. Black's stones are dead. Even though :b2: Black took a ko, :w5: does not require a pass before capturing :b2: because it is not a ko position since it would take Black's stones off the board. Of course there is an intervening move :w3: as is required for kos.
Image

----------

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O . O . X . X O O . O
$$ | O O O X a X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O X O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
After :b3: "a" becomes again a ko. Has this ko to be considered the same ko or is it a new ko?
It is the same ko because it is the same shape even though it was briefly a shape where White could take Black's stones off the board if White had 2 moves in a row.


Gérard TAILLE wrote:
we are in a double ko situation and we know that, strictly speaking, the rule does not handle correctly a double ko situation.
[/quote]They don't? I missed that discussion. Would you point me to it?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #136 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 1:38 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
John Fairbairn wrote:
Would someone be willing to try to explain to me what this and similar threads are actually about?
The main issue always seems to be whether one player can win without teire or whether they lose the game, either by playing teire or by the rules making claimed-territory into dame when teire is not played. That is the question in this tread: does white get territory at b-e without White teire at a-d?
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O e O b X c d O O . O
$$ | O O O X O X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O a O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

John Fairbairn wrote:
The argument seems to be about the confirmation phase. But I have never (I think) come across a single case where a confirmation phase has ever been needed.
Well, the "confirmation phase" is just a formal time to fill dame and argue about whether teire is required, whether stones are seki, and sometimes both. In The Incident Room, we see Takahashi argue about seki, Segoe mess up dame filling, Rin not wanting to play teire, and Sakata resuming the game. All sorts of "confirmation phase" activities.
John Fairbairn wrote:
My tentative conclusion is that, to continue the zoological analogy, it's just a case of passing the time by pulling the legs off spiders.
Actually, we are arguing about whether we need to put the legs back on.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #137 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 2:06 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1236
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 57
Rank: 1d
CDavis7M wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
we are in a double ko situation and we know that, strictly speaking, the rule does not handle correctly a double ko situation.
They don't? I missed that discussion. Would you point me to it?


First of all you can look at Robert Jasiek commentary of J89 : http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html, Example II.17
Then you can look at "Japonese counting" thread from post https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=266527#p266527 and lot of following posts.
Finally you can look at https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=18377 thread in which I proposed a solution to handle double ko issue.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #138 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:05 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
First of all you can look at Robert Jasiek commentary of J89 : http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html, Example II.17
Then you can look at "Japonese counting" thread from post https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=266527#p266527 and lot of following posts.
Finally you can look at https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=18377 thread in which I proposed a solution to handle double ko issue.
Thank you. I have actually heard of this non-issue before. People are confused because they haven't read the Preamble (https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/match/kiyaku/) or the Summary of the Revision (https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/match/kiyaku/gaiyo-00.html) in the Japanese Rules, which are not in the English translation by Davies.

One misconception is that "hypothetical play" actually happens during L&D Confirmation and that such hypothetical play is actually required in order to confirm L&D status. However, hypothetical play is not required when L&D status can be confirmed by definition/ruling.

Another misconception is that the Japanese Rules no longer rely on the old rulings and tradition and instead rely on the new rules for seki, passing for kos, and so on in the Confirmation of L&D. However, there is nothing in the Rules that state this and the Examples clearly show otherwise.

The Preamble states that the Rules Committee sought to determine an overarching rationale for past rulings. The Committee determined the rationale to be the "pass requirement" for kos in L&D Confirmation. That's all they did. The pass requirement is merely a rationale for the rulings. Inconsistent rulings were dismissed but the consistent rulings remain. The Revision to the Rules did not state that past rulings would no longer be relied on, and they did not state that players would actually engage in hypothetical play.

The Japanese Rules provide a variety of definitions for the consistent rulings and the Committee shows how those definitions have consistency based on the "pass requirement" rationale. Once the primary rulings are defined, the Japanese Rules show compound examples relying on multiple definitions/rulings. In such cases the Committee simply applies the rulings by definition without any need to prove consistency using hypothetical play. There is no need for a position to be proved by hypothetical play because consistency has been shown in the definition. The misconceptions mentioned above come from taking the Examples out of context.

For example:
--Example 7 defines bent-4 in the corner as being living stones, even with a double-ko.
--Examples 16 and 17 define what a seki collapse is.
--Example 18 includes bent-4 in the corner and a seki collapse by their definitions. There is no need to perform hypothetical play in Example 18 since since Black is dead by the definition of bent-4 and seki collapse. And as you mentioned, attempting to perform hypothetical play might lead into a never ending series of retakes and passes.

----------

I've mentioned this elsewhere but was dismissed by people by people who prefer to fight against apparent inconsistency. Instead of fighting, I just read everything at once, recognize the context, and find the understanding that provides consistency.

If you think that an Example in the Japanese Rules doesn't work, it's not that the Rules don't work, it's that you misunderstand how they work.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #139 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 3:43 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1236
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 57
Rank: 1d
CDavis7M wrote:
One misconception is that "hypothetical play" actually happens during L&D Confirmation and that such hypothetical play is actually required in order to confirm L&D status. However, hypothetical play is not required when L&D status can be confirmed by definition/ruling.

Let me try to understand your point
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O . O . B . . O O . O
$$ | O O O B O B O O O O O
$$ | X X X O . O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

In this position, when using NORMAL play it is quite easy for the players to agree that the three black stones are dead and white do not need to add a teire move.
Taking what you said can I conclude that this situation does not require any hypothetical play and can I conclude that the top part is white territory with three black stones captured, without any white teire move added?
If it is true then this position presents no more problem does it?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?
Post #140 Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:29 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
In this position, when using NORMAL play it is quite easy for the players to agree that the three black stones are dead and white do not need to add a teire move.
Whoa, slow down. The players do NOT "agree" to anything about L&D status and teire during normal play. Agreeing about status and teire is something that only happens after the game is stopped. The players can either play the moves or not, there is no agreement what the result would be. And while a move for teire purposes can be played in the game, teire itself is a term of L&D confirmation.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Taking what you said can I conclude that this situation does not require any hypothetical play and can I conclude that the top part is white territory with three black stones captured, without any white teire move added?
No. I said that the Japanese Rules provide definitions/rulings and that those can be applied without so-called hypothetical play. There is no definition/ruling for this position we are discussing otherwise we would not be discussing it. So there is nothing to apply.

The positions that have definitions/rulings often are labeled so that the players know when/where to apply it, like:
「取らず三目」- torazu sanmoku "3 points without capturing" (now a misnomer)
手入れ不要 - teire required
「ハネゼキ」hanezeki (hane-seki)
長生 - Chosei - Eternal Life
「隅の曲り四目」 - "Bent 4 in the corner"
「隅の曲り四目」と「万年劫」の併存 - "Bent 4 with a ten thousand year ko"
「眼あり眼なし三劫」- me ari me nashi - eye vs no eye in a triple ko
本劫の手入れ - teire for direct ko
一手ヨセ劫手入れ不要 - no teire for direct yose ko
「両劫に仮生一」 - temporary life by double ko.
「万年劫」 - Ten thousand year ko
「地」の確定のための駄目詰め―二段劫 - dame filling to determine territory for a 2 step ko
「両劫ゼキ」- double ko seki

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 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