It is currently Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:13 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic books
Post #1 Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:43 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 73
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 10
Research of ancient weiqi rules in two Chinese classic books

author:Zhang hu
copyright reserved
"Scoring Rules by Captives/Prisoners(计俘子规则), found by Zhang hu(章浒)",
"If you quote my arguments, please attach the above texts and relevant contents."

Introduction & Part 1: a hidden rule in ancient weiqi rules(Song Dynasty and more early) at here
Part 2: ancient rules in texts & annotations of 13 Chapters Classic at https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=17866
Part 3: ancient rules in texts of Dunhuang Classic of Weiqi at https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=17870

Thanks for the contribution of lightvector, who supports ancient Weiqi rules in KataGo.

Introduction

Two Chinese classic books:
1. Thirteen Chapters Classic, Chinese name:《棋经十三篇》

2. Dunhuang "Classic of WeiQi"(Dunhuang Classic Go Manual) found at Dunghuang, Chinese name:敦煌《碁经》
Collection at: http://idp.bl.uk/database/oo_loader.a4d ... 210/S.5574 — International Dunhuang Project

Thirteen Chapters Classic in LanKeJing is writed by Zhang jing(张靖 or Zhang ni张拟) —— Bachelor of government officials in Northern Song Dynasty.
and is annoted by Liu zhong fu(刘仲甫) —— Famous Weiqi player in Northern Song Dynasty(annoted by Liu-zhong-fu, I found it.)

Comment:LanKeJing(Classic of rotten hatchet handle) Chinese name:《烂柯经》
爛柯経 巻1-3 巻4 Collection at: https://www.digital.archives.go.jp/ - 内閣文庫 漢書 子の部 of NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF JAPAN

Chapter 13 Miscellany of the Thirteen Chapters Classic talked much about ancient rules. So, These texts and annotations are very important.
Chapter VI Rules of WeiQi of Dunhuang Classic also talked more about the older ancient rules, These texts are also very important.

I will explain Chapter 13 of the Thirteen Chapters Classic, combine with Dunhuang Classic of Weiqi("Classic of WeiQi" found at Dunghuang)
will also explain all texts in Chapter VI Rules of WeiQi of Dunhuang Classic, Not only one sentence on Chapter VI.

Before the Ming Dynasty, all the rules of Weiqi were essentially scoring by prisoners/captured stones.

Another view, "The History of Go Rules by Chen zu yuan" please see: https://www.usgo.org/sites/default/file ... orules.pdf

back to article "written EVID of ancient rules in different historical stage" at https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 72#p264872

PS:Because my English reading and writing ability is very poor,I will finish the article with the help of translation software.
So, I could not reply more, very sorry.

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China


Last edited by pgwq on Wed May 12, 2021 11:09 pm, edited 72 times in total.

This post by pgwq was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #2 Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:23 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 73
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 10
(part 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 as below)

part 1-1 of a hidden rule in ancient weiqi rules(Song Dynasty and more early)

In Song Dynasty and more early, a hidden rule is: simply pass is prohibitted.
if one side want to "pass", he(she) must hand one own stone to the other side, it is a captured stone/prisoner.

1) In ancient Chinese philosophy, Alternating between Yin and Yang is called Tao. Chinese: 一阴一阳之谓道。

2) In Song Dynasty, "even number game over" - the number of total moves must be even.(Zhao-zhi-yun and Chen-zu-yuan's research)
Evidences are manuals of Weiqi lefting from Song Dynasty.

3) when board is filling full, stones overflow(溢) from the board, two Classic books mentioned it. (see part 2 and 3 of the article)

These may support the above hidden rule.

4) A simple example will also prove it.

look picture below, there are not any captured stones outside the board.
○ is basic liberties/eyes which making group alive forever, you can not fill in it.
▲ is Lu - territory in Song Dynasty

3 white stones (labled ▲) are taken off from the board, then they (labled X now) are directly filled in white's territory)

Attachment:
1-1_revised.png
1-1_revised.png [ 87.72 KiB | Viewed 3414 times ]


by rules of Song Dynasty:
Black side: 16 + 4 = 20,
White side: 16 - 3 = 13, (3 white stones labled ▲ are directly filled in white's territory)
black wins 7 Lu.

Comment:
As a simple method, weiqi players in Song Dynasty often directly fill the prisoners into each other's territory.

Three white stones on the board will be directly looked as dead stones, and directy filled in White's territory.
Why?

Maybe,I will insiste that these 3 stones are not dead.
How could we prove these 3 stones are dead?

Let the actual combat prove it.
Attachment:
1-3.png
1-3.png [ 88.71 KiB | Viewed 6990 times ]

the 1st round:
Black play move1 take away 2 white stones, White fill one stone in own territory, or pass with an action(hand one own stone to Black side).
the 2nd round:
Black play move3 take away 1 white stone, White fill one stone in own territory, or pass with an action(hand one own stone to Black side) .

by rules of Song Dynasty:
Black side: 16 + 2 = 18,
White side: 14 - 3 = 11, (3 white dead stones labled "X" are directly filled in white's territory)
black wins 7 Lu.

So, if "pass", the side of pass must hand one own stone to the other side, this will not change the outcome.
Conversely, it will change the outcome.

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China


Last edited by pgwq on Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:29 pm, edited 65 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #3 Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:54 pm 
Judan

Posts: 5532
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 751
pgwq wrote:
A simple example will prove it.


Is your example diagram a preview on which you will comment later by then describing historical proof of pass stones as part of a translation work?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #4 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:01 am 
Judan

Posts: 5532
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 751
pgwq wrote:
by rules of Song Dynasty:
Black side:16+4=20,
White side:16-3=13,black win 7 Lu.


(Just seeing your edit of your message.)

I think with +4 you mean the triangled intersections in the left black region and with -3 you mean the white stones there. Please explain the relation between these two numbers and the rules of Song Dynasty according to your current understanding!

What is the relation to pass stones?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #5 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:25 am 
Judan

Posts: 5532
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 751
pgwq wrote:
Let the actual combat prove it.
the 1st round:
Black play a move take away 2 white stones,White pass(hands a own stone to Black side) or fill a stone in own territory.
the 2nd round:
Black play a move take away 1 white stone,White pass(hands a own stone to Black side) or fill a stone in own territory.

So, if oneside pass,the side of pass must hand one own stone to otherside, this will not change the outcome.


(Reply to the 2nd edit of your message.)

Let me calculate the effect of your moves on the left black region if White chooses passes:
Black has 2 points of counting territory (because one circle of not counting territory moves to a remaining empty intersection within the left black region.
Black has 3 white prisoner stones.
Black has 2 white pass stones.
White has made the last pass (even if we imagine two extra passes, but I do not know if they would occur under Song Dynasty rules).
Net effect: +2 + 3 + 2 = +7 Lu.

As a pure calculation, you are right that "if one side passes, the side of pass must hand one own stone to other side, this will not change the outcome" provided White makes the last move (passing). We know this from AGA Rules etc.

However, what is your evidence that this is what Song Dynasty rules were actually doing?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #6 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 12:38 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 73
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 10
part 1-2 of a hidden rule in ancient weiqi rules(Song Dynasty and more early)

Simply pass is prohibitted.
if "pass", the side of pass must hand one own stone to the other side.
the evdience in ancient classic books.

Attachment:
lanke_2.png
lanke_2.png [ 873.64 KiB | Viewed 7101 times ]

“角盘曲四,局终乃亡”
"the shape of bent 4 circled at the corner of the board, die at the end of the game."
-- from Thirteen Chapters Classic in lan ke jing(Classic of rotten hatchet handle,Chinese name:《烂柯经》)

comment:
because of John's reminder, delete "bent 4 stones", correct it to:"the shape of bent 4 circled at the corner of the board, die at the end of the game."
Bill said: It is known in English as "Bent Four in the corner is dead."

Many years ago, Weiqi historian Zhao zhi yun has written an article with this old quintessence formula.
He found "the number of black and white moves is balanced" from manuals of Song Dynasty.
Then he used this old quintessence formula to make a demonstration of simulation.
He has proved:"because the number of total moves must be even, sometimes you have to fill one stone in own territory."
see: https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 59#p261659

According above, we will further prove that:
1. "if one side pass, he(she) must fills one stone in own territory, or has to hand one own stone to the other side."
2. "simply pass without any other action will change the outcome"

“If one side has to hand one own stone to the other side" is named "overflow(溢)" in Song Dynasty and more early.
The board has been filled, leaving only the basic eyes positions needed by groups to survive.
Next moves/stones cannot fills on the board, overflowing now!
see part2 and 3 of article.

Look picture below,
if Black play move number 1,3,5, and White pass 3 times without any other actions, the outcome will be changed.
Can we simply say "the shape of bent 4 circled at the corner of the board, die at the end of the game."?
Attachment:
2-1.png
2-1.png [ 63.61 KiB | Viewed 7081 times ]


below is the actual combat, it will not change the outcome.
Attachment:
3-1.png
3-1.png [ 62.36 KiB | Viewed 7090 times ]


Pay attention to this, in rules of Song Dynasty, one party fills one stone in own territory or hands one own stone to the other, it will change the outcome.

In fact, this is determined by the law of the rules of Song Dynasty itself.
Actually I don't need to prove it ,AGA rules need to prove itself?

PS:in ancient Chinese philosophy, Alternating between Yin and Yang is called Tao. Chinese: 一阴一阳之谓道。

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China


Last edited by pgwq on Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:55 am, edited 34 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #7 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:24 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 73
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 10
part 2

ancient rules in texts & annotations of Thirteen Chapters Classic

I decide to post new topic for this.

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China


Last edited by pgwq on Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:59 am, edited 7 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #8 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:43 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Thank you very much for sharing your research and your ideas. :)

pgwq wrote:
a hidden rule in ancient weiqi rules(Song Dynasty)

In Song Dynasty and so on,
if one side want to pass, he(she) must hand an own stone to another side, it is a captured stone.


Does any text mention pass? Thanks. :)

_________________
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: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #9 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:49 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 73
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 10
Bill Spight wrote:
Thank you very much for sharing your research and your ideas. :)

pgwq wrote:
a hidden rule in ancient weiqi rules(Song Dynasty)

In Song Dynasty and so on,
if one side want to pass, he(she) must hand an own stone to another side, it is a captured stone.


Does any text mention pass? Thanks. :)


No.
in ancient Chinese philosophy, Alternating between Yin and Yang is called Tao. Chinese: 一阴一阳之谓道。

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #10 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:34 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
pgwq wrote:
if pass, the side of pass must hand an own stone to otherside.
the evdience in ancient classic books.

Attachment:
lanke_2.png

“角盘曲四,局终乃亡”
"the shape of bent 4 stones circled at the corner of the board, die at the end of the game."
-- from Thirteen Chapters Classic in lan ke jing(Classic of rotten hatchet handle,Chinese name:《烂柯经》)


This rule appears in the Japanese 1948 rules and is known in English as "Bent Four in the corner is dead." :) It became controversial as one of the special rulings of the Japanese rules. This text shows that this so-called special ruling is not so special, but has a long history. It dates back at least to the practice in the Song Dynasty. :) We may infer that games ended then without playing Bent Four positions out.

Quote:
Many years ago, Weiqi historian Zhao zhi yun has written an article with this old quintessence formula, proved that "simple pass without any action will change the outcome" and "if pass, must fills a stone in own territory, or hands an own stone to other side".


Yes, if the Bent Four is played out and one player passes without any other action, then the score changes. Handing over a pass stone can preserve the score.

Quote:
below is the actual combat, it will not change the outcome.


Black eliminates White's ko threats before starting the Bent Four ko to capture the White stones. White plays a stone to match each of the Black stones played. That way the score remains the same.

Quote:
Pay attention to this, in rules of Song Dynasty, one side fills a stone in own territory or hands an own stone to other side, will change the outcome.


Technically, the rule simply says that the White stones are dead, just like the Japanese 1948 rules. It does not mention pass stones or White playing a stone for each Black stone played. That is a different way of getting the same score.

The problem is that there are positions where playing the position out does not produce the same score, even with pass stones. For instance, there are unremovable ko threats which may be on the board, and other possible complications. That is why the Bent Four rule is controversial. :)

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


Last edited by Bill Spight on Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #11 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:42 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
pgwq wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Does any text mention pass? Thanks. :)


No.
in ancient Chinese philosophy, Alternating between Yin and Yang is called Tao. Chinese: 一阴一阳之谓道。


Thank you. :)

My speculation is that very, very long ago, players did not pass but kept on playing, or simply stopped play at some point and agreed on the score. By the time I learned go in Japan in the 20th century, we simply stopped play by agreement. :)

_________________
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: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #12 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:00 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 73
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 10
Quote:
Technically, the rule simply says that the White stones are dead, just like the Japanese 1948 rules. It does not mention pass stones or White playing a stone for each Black stone played. That is a different way of getting the same score.


White playing a stone for each Black stone played,if White can not playing a stone on the board,White need to hand an own stone to Black.
We can infer it logically. Acturally, there is not any classic books mentioned it.

by the way,"the shape of bent 4 stones circled at the corner of the board, die at the end of the game." also be recorded at Classic of Weiqi found at Dunhuang.

Quote:
The problem is that there are positions where playing the position out does not produce the same score, even with pass stones. For instance, there are unremovable ko threats which may be on the board, and other possible complications. That is why the Bent Four rule is controversial. :)


Pithy formula has its scope of use,not including special case. for example, we often say "make two eyes for living".

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #13 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:19 am 
Oza

Posts: 3132
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4147
pgwq: I accept there are great difficulties for you if English is not your native language, but the mistakes and inconsistencies in what you have posted so far are not really anything to do with language. It's more that you do not seem familiar with the latest research in China (and perhaps all the old manuals?).

Zhang Jing wrote the commentary on Chapter 13 which is the main issue here. He did not write the rest of the book. That was Zhang Ni. So the commentary is there for a special reason. Liu Zhongfu's attribution is suspect for the simple reason he was dead at the time. For all this and much, much more see Sun Dechang's major work on C&IP. Chen Zuyuan himself also has recently written new work citing C&IP, in which he recounts mistakes in the Song edition. And his collaboration on a recent symposium paper with Li Zhe is a must-read too.

The "hidden rule" of bent four has never been hidden. It is mentioned in other texts. It is mentioned, for example, by Zhu Changfang in the late Ming but he gives a slightly different version of the text you quote, adding the reinforcing character (死): 盘角曲四局终乃亡死. But as with everybody else he is more concerned with terminology than rules. For example, in the section immediately before this mention of Bent Four, Zhu tells us four empty points in a zigzag shape (called just 曲四 – Bent Four – in the earlier XuanXuan Qijing)J iscalled 顺曲四, and he also adds a new special term for Bent Four on the Side – 轉頭曲四 – Bent Four with Head Turned. Similarly he distinguishes between 横直三 and顺直三.

Later on, Zhu also gives the corner bent-four shape under the name Broken Jade Tablet 破玉板 and points out that is dead [or, more accurately, perhaps: that it will die]. However, Zhu does not specify that this is because of the liberty situation, even though he does note that liberties matter in the case of the well-known rectangular six in the corner. In both these cases he is more concerned with the name of the killing move - 'placement' 点 - so much so that he has had that character engraved on the killing stone. And the whole of the long context round about is similarly about terminology, such as the names for the various nakade shapes. Just like Zhang Jing in the 13C commentary, he is talking about terminology, not rules. And not even rule terminology.

If you want to look at bent four purely in rule terms, you will not get a definitive answer such as "dead by rule", but you will be able to make various useful inferences from the following problems in the XXQJ: 樊噲入鴻門, 商山逸老, 沉機, 六鷁退飛 and 六國歸秦. Bent four comes up I either the solution or the variations, and in the case of Six Fish-hawks Flying Backwards (I think this is the one, from memory) there is even an interesting reference to a seki. The point is, these were real-world examples, and it is always essential to look at real-world practice, which is not bound by the laws of either logic or common-sense..

It is also vital always to look at more than one text, and to look for possible textual or diagram corruptions. Chen's discovery of the handwritten changes in the game records in C&IP are the classic case. I have been able to show him, incidentally, that the 1918 photo-reproduction of the sole surviving original edition of this book lacks this corruption, so it could have been a modern change (though arguing strongly against that is the fact that the paper is probably to brittle to allow a modern change - Chen is inclined to believe the handwritten change was noticed even then and so was stripped out of the photo).

A similar example that relates to bent four is the odd shape given in the Xuanxuan Qijing under the name of the Bloated Ox 脹牯牛. Discussed solely from the point of view of the Xuanxuan Qijing, this position is cited as being proof of the fact that White cannot play in the corner. In other words, possibly useful confirmation for rules mavens that suicide was not entertained, though that doesn't but that doesn’t make much sense as Black can be captured anyway. Go Seigen speculated that what was really meant was the well-known Bent Four in the Corner variation where Black has enough liberties to live by suufocating the white stones. At one level that made perfect sense, but it does mean that, instead of festering and exploding by the road side, the dead ox miraculously comes back to life!

However, if we look at Zhu Changfang’s book we have the same position except that there is another white stone on the corner point. The position then becomes of the same type as all the other positions in the same portions of both books (his and the XXQJ). The obvious inference is we can safely posit a misprint in the XXQJ and that all the previous explanations and speculation about the ox are totally otiose. Ah, Bisto!

Working backwards from logic is always dangerous. Where you end up always depends where you start from. Starting from your admission that passes are not mentioned in old go seems like arguing that if you start walking west from London by following the North Star you will logically end up in North America. It overlooks the fact you will have to have the divine ability to walk on water, and takes no account then of unpredicabilities, such as Moby Dick deciding it would be nice to have something different for lunch.

What is your native language? It may be possible for people here to read that. You could even post in both languages. It would also be helpful for people with no Chinese to know how confident you feel in reading the various kinds of ancient Chinese (varied because they span over 1,000 years).

Edit 1:
Quote:
by the way,"the shape of bent 4 stones circled at the corner of the board, die at the end of the game." also be recorded at Classic of Weiqi found at Dunhuang.


Where?

Edit 2: I decided to not to be lazy and checked myself: it is in line 48. 角旁曲四局竟乃亡 (and again it is mentioned in a terminology section, not as a discussion of rules). A quick finger san also seemed to confirm my impression that the key character 路 does not appear in Dunhuang.


Last edited by John Fairbairn on Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #14 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:20 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
pgwq wrote:
Quote:
Technically, the rule simply says that the White stones are dead, just like the Japanese 1948 rules. It does not mention pass stones or White playing a stone for each Black stone played. That is a different way of getting the same score.


White playing a stone for each Black stone played,if White can not playing a stone on the board,White need to hand an own stone to Black.
We can infer it logically. Actually, there is not any classic books mentioned it.


Simple no pass go is different from the game we know, and from the ancient game with the so-called group tax. In the 1980s Professor Berlekamp proposed the rule that instead of playing a stone on the board a player could return a prisoner to the opponent. That rule is more restrictive than a pass stone rule. If you don't have a prisoner left you must play on the board. If you can. ;)

Quote:
by the way,"the shape of bent 4 stones circled at the corner of the board, die at the end of the game." also be recorded at Classic of Weiqi found at Dunhuang.


Really? :o Now, that is extremely interesting. :) It implies that dead stones mattered.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


Last edited by Bill Spight on Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #15 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:23 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
John Fairbairn wrote:
The "hidden rule" of bent four has never been hidden.


To be fair, I think the hidden rule is the one about pass stones.

_________________
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: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #16 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:21 am 
Dies with sente

Posts: 73
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 10
part 1-3: the response of a hidden rule in ancient weiqi rules(Song Dynasty and more early)

John Fairbairn wrote:
pgwq: I accept there are great difficulties for you if English is not your native language, but the mistakes and inconsistencies in what you have posted so far are not really anything to do with language. It's more that you do not seem familiar with the latest research in China (and perhaps all the old manuals?).

explain at below.

Quote:
Zhang Jing wrote the commentary on Chapter 13 which is the main issue here. He did not write the rest of the book. That was Zhang Ni. So the commentary is there for a special reason. Liu Zhongfu's attribution is suspect for the simple reason he was dead at the time. For all this and much, much more see Sun Dechang's major work on C&IP. Chen Zuyuan himself also has recently written new work citing C&IP, in which he recounts mistakes in the Song edition. And his collaboration on a recent symposium paper with Li Zhe is a must-read too.


Zhang Jing or Zhang Ni wrote THE book.This is a controversy in Chinese weiqi academic circles from 30 years before to now. So, The latest research in China maybe make mistakes too.
you said"Zhang Jing wrote the commentary on Chapter 13 which is the main issue here",the evidence is here.

picture below:"Zhang JING wrote(张靖撰)"means Zhang Jing wrote the texts of "Lun qi jue yao za shuo(论棋诀要杂说)",Zhang Jing had never wrote the commentary on Chapter 13/Lun qi jue yao za shuo.
Attachment:
zjz.png
zjz.png [ 282.03 KiB | Viewed 7029 times ]


the annotations of Thirteen Chapters Classic in "Xuan Xuan Qi Jing" of Yuan Dynasty, wrote by Yan de fu(严德甫).
and its annotations are different with the annotations of Thirteen Chapters Classic in "Lan Ke Jing".

Yan de fu annoted Chapter 1-13,and at Chapter 13 of Thirteen Chapters Classic,Yan said:"Liu zhong fu said'xxxxxxx(刘仲甫曰xxxxxxx)'" 4 times.
see below:
Attachment:
xxqj-2.png
xxqj-2.png [ 588.16 KiB | Viewed 7006 times ]

and these sentences(Liu zhong fu said'xxxxxxx') are same as the annotations of "Lun qi jue yao za shuo(论棋诀要杂说)",
also same as the annotations of Thirteen Chapters Classic in "Lan Ke Jing".

So,Zhang Jing(张靖) wrote the texts of "Lun qi jue uao za shuo(论棋诀要杂说)", and Liu zhong fu(刘仲甫) wrote the annotations.
By the way,Dr Sun de chang wrote an article about Lan Ke Jing, He quoted my argument,Liu zhong fu commented Thirteen Chapters Classic in Lan Ke Jing.

Quote:
The "hidden rule" of bent four has never been hidden.

I had not say this. I means Pass with an action(handing to an own stone to your opponent) is a hidden rule.

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China


Last edited by pgwq on Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:21 pm, edited 20 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #17 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:27 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
John Fairbairn wrote:
Edit 1:
Quote:
by the way,"the shape of bent 4 stones circled at the corner of the board, die at the end of the game." also be recorded at Classic of Weiqi found at Dunhuang.


Where?

Edit 2: I decided to not to be lazy and checked myself: it is in line 48. 角旁曲四局竟乃亡 (and again it is mentioned in a terminology section, not as a discussion of rules). A quick finger san also seemed to confirm my impression that the key character 路 does not appear in Dunhuang.


Even if this does not appear in the rules section, which we all know is not exactly clear, it is significant. It not only says that there is a shape in the corner known as Bent Four, it says that it is dead. That is significant. If the board was played out until it was full, whether the eyes necessary for life were filled or not, you don't need to specify that Bent Four is dead. This, and perhaps other statements, help us to make sense of the rules section.

To anticipate where pgwq is going, it may be that captured stones were counted instead of stones on the board. For instance:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wm6 Playing out the game
$$ -----------
$$ | 3 O X X 4 |
$$ | . O O X . |
$$ | 1 O X X 2 |
$$ | . O O X . |
$$ | 5 O X X 6 |
$$ -----------[/go]


This board is played out until it is full, except for the eyes necessary for life. If we count the stones on the board then the net score is 1 point for Black. If we count the prisoners, the net score is 0. :)

Edit: And if we count prisoners, dead stones matter.

Edit2: Furthermore, if Bent Four goes all the way back to Dunhuang, it is not really fair to call it a special ruling of the Japanese '48 rules. :)

_________________
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: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #18 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:35 am 
Oza

Posts: 3132
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4147
Quote:
It implies that dead stones mattered.


We are getting into areas where my brain hurts. The simplest analgesic seems to be to ask: why?

Or more precisely, can you explain why to a bear of little brain who starts with the following assumptions.

1. The various mentions of bent four in texts (as opposed to problems) are all embedded in contexts to do with terminology. There is no direct mention of rules.

2. However, it could be argued that "dead by rule" is implied. That would be one inference is you make the translation "bent four in the corner is dead at the end of the game." But there is another possible inference - see below.

3. But you could equally argue that the sense intended is that "bent four will remain dead at the end of the game" and so it is a waste of time playing it out. It is not a rule, but just a straightforward observation of what happens in practice if you do try to play it out. Esoteric, modern arguments about what happens if there a double ko elsewhere and so on hardly seem likely to apply. They may not have even been seen or imagined. After all, if the context is all about interesting positions such as Flower Six or the fact that liberties matter with Rectangular Six in the corner, you would expect some mention of equally interesting things live double kos and weird sekis. I therefore would argue that the approach then was not rule based but common-sense based. The imposition of the modern mathematical rules mindset on ancient go is almost certain to be an anachronism.

Now, starting from this basis, one alternative scenario I can imagine (which is highly speculative but I think safer than imposing modern mindsets) is that under stone scoring a group required two eyes to live, but when they looked at bent four at the end of the game they were a bit baffled. They could see that it was "not alive". So they treated it as a seki. It was "not alive" = "dead" in that restricted sense. The character used, 亡, can mean defunct, to perish, but is not the same as 死. It can (in ancient texts) have connotations of "let's just forget about it, put it one side, etc." Stone counting can then continue without removing any stones from the board. (It's odd, incidentally, that sekis get so little mention in old texts.)

For those who wish to follow this discussion but feel hampered by not being familiar with the original texts, I will try to make some of the issues clearer by looking first at the Dunhuang text.

角旁曲四局竟乃亡: 角 is corner; 旁 is side, but in ancient Chinese also had the meaning of askew or crooked; 曲 is bent, so there is a bit of tautology there; 四 is four; 局 is game; 竟 is end (the Dunhuuang actually uses a non-Unicode variant); 乃 can mean so, thereupon, thereby, thus, but is possibly being used for 仍 still, to remain; 亡 I have already mentioned. So we end up with a text that tells us something like "bent four in the corner is/remains not alive". And that's it in toto. No mention of rules, counting, seki, passes or the price of fish.

Later writers, as was the wont of ancient Chinese gentlemen, in their version of our [quote] [unquote] copied this phrase and tweaked it. In the space of nearly a millennium language had changed. But, more importantly, it seems the rules of go had also changed.

By the time of the Thirteen Chapter Classic this text had subtly altered to 角盘曲四局终乃亡 (but the terminological context remained the same). We now have 盘 'coiled around' instead of 旁, but the meaning is essentially the same: crooked around the corner'. 终 is used (understandably enough) for the weird form of the character 竟, but the meaning of 'end of the game' remains the same.

Later still, as in Zhu Changfang's book, the sentence has another subtle change: 角盘曲四局终乃亡死. So Zhu apparently felt the need to add 死. If 亡 meant 'dead' as opposed to 'not alive' that would be pure tautology. My suggestion is that we should consider the possibility that he added 死 (dead as in the Dead Parrot sketch - expired, kaput etc) because the rules of go had changed and he wanted to emphasise that the phrase (because of the rule change) actually meant the stones were dead and there was no seki.

I stress again, this is all speculation. We are not just building a house with clay and no straw. We are closer to having just one handful of clay. Other interpretations are possible. But I do feel very uneasy if those other interpretations are just imposing modern mindsets, especially if they invent straw such as pass rules out of thin air.

Sometimes it is better to say, "We just don't know."

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #19 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:56 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
It implies that dead stones mattered.


We are getting into areas where my brain hurts. The simplest analgesic seems to be to ask: why?

Or more precisely, can you explain why to a bear of little brain who starts with the following assumptions.

1. The various mentions of bent four in texts (as opposed to problems) are all embedded in contexts to do with terminology. There is no direct mention of rules.


That does not mean that Bent Four is irrelevant to the rules. I won't strain your brain further by mentioning Grice's maxims, which are not logical, but common sensical, and not particularly restricted by culture. While they may be violated, they are an aid to interpretation.

John Fairbairn wrote:
2. However, it could be argued that "dead by rule" is implied. That would be one inference is you make the translation "bent four in the corner is dead at the end of the game." But there is another possible inference - see below.


Well, as we know, the Bent Four shape itself does not appear in play if what is called Bent Four in the corner is (Edit: considered to be) dead. And it is not the stones that make the shape that are dead, but the stones that would capture those stones if they made the shape. OC, none of this is in the text, but as go players we know what is meant by Bent Four which is dead. :)

John Fairbairn wrote:
3. But you could equally argue that the sense intended is that "bent four will remain dead at the end of the game" and so it is a waste of time playing it out. It is not a rule, but just a straightforward observation of what happens in practice if you do try to play it out.


Right. And that implies that the players did not play it out. That's quite different from the impression you get from stone scoring, which suggests that the game was played out, until only the eye points necessary for life were left. (OC, nothing prevented players from stopping play earlier and determining the score as if the board were all played out. No sense being boring.)

John Fairbairn wrote:
Esoteric, modern arguments about what happens if there a double ko elsewhere and so on hardly seem likely to apply. They may not have even been seen or imagined. After all, if the context is all about interesting positions such as Flower Six or the fact that liberties matter with Rectangular Six in the corner, you would expect some mention of equally interesting things live double kos and weird sekis.


Now that you mention that fact, I think you are right about that. :)

John Fairbairn wrote:
I therefore would argue that the approach then was not rule based but common-sense based. The imposition of the modern mathematical rules mindset on ancient go is almost certain to be an anachronism.


No expletive deleted! ;) I found it interesting in the 1990s, after learning combinatorial game theory (CGT), that the simplest go rules in terms of CGT, apart from straight no pass go, are territory rules with a group tax. I was completely gobsmacked to find out later that one form of ancient go was, in fact, played under territory rules with a group tax! :shock: How about that! :D

Not that the ancients channeled Professor Berlekamp from the future, but that amazing fact shows two things. First, that territory scoring is not logically flawed, as a number of people believe. It may be derived from impeccable logic. And second, that it is not necessary for territory scoring with a group tax to have evolved from stone scoring, perhaps originally as a method of simplifying the calculation of the score, as in the AGA rules.

I have gone even further to show that the concept of territory itself, where dead stones are included, can emerge from no pass go itself. Not that that's where the idea came from. It's a footnote, but it's my footnote. ;)

John Fairbairn wrote:
Now, starting from this basis, one alternative scenario I can imagine (which is highly speculative but I think safer than imposing modern mindsets) is that under stone scoring a group required two eyes to live, but when they looked at bent four at the end of the game they were a bit baffled. They could see that it was "not alive". So they treated it as a seki. It was "not alive" = "dead" in that restricted sense. The character used, 亡, can mean defunct, to perish, but is not the same as 死. It can (in ancient texts) have connotations of "let's just forget about it, put it one side, etc." Stone counting can then continue without removing any stones from the board. (It's odd, incidentally, that sekis get so little mention in old texts.)


Then why mention it at all? Especially since the term, Bent Four, has lasted through the ages. And it is odd that 亡 would mean what today we call alive. Surely the ancients knew that there was a ko lurking in Bent Four. And if they were using stone scoring they could eliminate ko threats with no penalty. Why not play it out under those conditions?

"Well, you know. there is this interesting shape called Bent Four in (next to?) the corner that actually doesn't appear as such on the board, but we still call it that. And by the way, it's defunct. Not that we know what to do with it." (I kid the ancients.)

No, I think that the ancients understood Bent Four and, like the modern Japanese, regarded it as dead.

John Fairbairn wrote:
For those who wish to follow this discussion but feel hampered by not being familiar with the original texts, I will try to make some of the issues clearer by looking first at the Dunhuang text.

角旁曲四局竟乃亡: 角 is corner; 旁 is side, but in ancient Chinese also had the meaning of askew or crooked; 曲 is bent, so there is a bit of tautology there; 四 is four; 局 is game; 竟 is end (the Dunhuuang actually uses a non-Unicode variant); 乃 can mean so, thereupon, thereby, thus, but is possibly being used for 仍 still, to remain; 亡 I have already mentioned. So we end up with a text that tells us something like "bent four in the corner is/remains not alive". And that's it in toto. No mention of rules, counting, seki, passes or the price of fish.


Many thanks, John. :) I was wondering if 旁 might mean beside? After all, it is not the stones that are actually in the corner that are dead, but the stones next to those stones.

As for the Bent Four stones remaining dead, why would anyone think that they were dead in the first place? Surely the text is meant to indicate that they are dead. That is, that they can be removed at the end of the game without capturing them. Since when do we have evidence from problems or games that Bent Four is dead, the 1300s or something? Not exactly a modern mindset.

John Fairbairn wrote:
Later writers, as was the wont of ancient Chinese gentlemen, in their version of our {quote} {unquote} copied this phrase and tweaked it. In the space of nearly a millennium language had changed. But, more importantly, it seems the rules of go had also changed.

By the time of the Thirteen Chapter Classic this text had subtly altered to 角盘曲四局终乃亡 (but the terminological context remained the same). We now have 盘 'coiled around' instead of 旁, but the meaning is essentially the same: crooked around the corner'. 终 is used (understandably enough) for the weird form of the character 竟, but the meaning of 'end of the game' remains the same.


Coiled around makes a lot of sense when you consider that it is the stones that are coiled around the corner on either side that are dead, not the stones that are actually in the corner. :)

John Fairbairn wrote:
Later still, as in Zhu Changfang's book, the sentence has another subtle change: 角盘曲四局终乃亡死. So Zhu apparently felt the need to add 死. If 亡 meant 'dead' as opposed to 'not alive' that would be pure tautology. My suggestion is that we should consider the possibility that he added 死 (dead as in the Dead Parrot sketch - expired, kaput etc) because the rules of go had changed and he wanted to emphasise that the phrase (because of the rule change) actually meant the stones were dead and there was no seki.


Interesting point. :) I am reminded of the Tok Pisin phrase, kilim daid. :)

John Fairbairn wrote:
I stress again, this is all speculation. We are not just building a house with clay and no straw. We are closer to having just one handful of clay. Other interpretations are possible. But I do feel very uneasy if those other interpretations are just imposing modern mindsets, especially if they invent straw such as pass rules out of thin air.


IMO, the modern mindset that says that territory go is illogical should be done away with, made defunct, uprooted, {Edit: laid to rest).

John Fairbairn wrote:
Sometimes it is better to say, "We just don't know."


But it's fun to speculate, isn't it? :cool: :lol:

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


This post by Bill Spight was liked by: pgwq
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic boo
Post #20 Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 9:49 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 73
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 10
part 1-4: the response of a hidden rule in ancient weiqi rules(Song Dynasty and more early)

Bill Spight wrote:
To anticipate where pgwq is going, it may be that captured stones were counted instead of stones on the board. For instance:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wm6 Playing out the game
$$ -----------
$$ | 3 O X X 4 |
$$ | . O O X . |
$$ | 1 O X X 2 |
$$ | . O O X . |
$$ | 5 O X X 6 |
$$ -----------[/go]


This board is played out until it is full, except for the eyes necessary for life. If we count the stones on the board then the net score is 1 point for Black. If we count the prisoners, the net score is 0. :)

Edit: And if we count prisoners, dead stones matter.

Edit2: Furthermore, if Bent Four goes all the way back to Dunhuang, it is not really fair to call it a special ruling of the Japanese '48 rules. :)


In times of Song Dynasty, weiqi players don't play moves of dame, and the number of total moves MUST be even(Zhao zhi yun and Chen zu yuan's research).
I've said before, in ancient Chinese philosophy, Alternating between Yin and Yang is called Tao. Chinese: 一阴一阳之谓道。

why don't they play moves of dame,
People of Song Dynasty and more early think it's unfair.
one party who goes first on the board, he(she) can not "steal" the last dame, and force the other party to fill one stone in own territory or hand over one stone as a prisoner to him.
Because the number of total moves MUST be even.

interesting, Japanese go players obey rule of "cann't play moves of dame" for many years.
A famous event is: Wu-qing-yuan's master Segoe Kensaku(濑越宪作) Vs Takahashi Shigeyuki(高桥重行), they put down dames at a game, and this game has no outcome.

Why "If we count the stones on the board then the net score is 1 point for Black. If we count the prisoners, the net score is 0"?

Because the number of total moves is not even,although black side "stole" the last dame, white side has not hand one stone as a prisoner to black side.
if the number of total moves is even, the score of two methods will be same as 1.

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China


Last edited by pgwq on Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:26 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  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