Life In 19x19 :: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Assume komi = 0.5
If the game ends in this position and if the 110 black stones in the upper left corner are considered dead then white wins by 0.5 point.
That means that if, in normal play, white takes effectively these 110 black stones then black is sure to win (because by taking the black stones white plays in her territory and looses one point).
As a consequence, in the position above white has no choice : white passes and the referee has to decide who is winning.
What is the problem. Nobody knows if black can live in the upper left corner (after white makes the capture) and more over nobody knows if black can live under hypothetical play!
Maybe we can conclude to a no result by ignorance (and not due to a explicit loop) ?

What do you mean by saying that standard ruleset is not designed to solve ANY legal POSITION that is possible on the Go board?

IOW, how do you recognize that a position is relevant or not to the standard ruleset? It may be obvious for some positions but what about any other positions like Igo Hatsuyôron 120 and many others?

Be sure I will not try to convince you about the interest of studying irreal positions!
I just try to understand what you consider being a "real" (?) go positions, relevant to the standard ruleset. Nothing else.

How is it complex to determine the status of black's block of stones in this position? It looks extremely simple to me: no eyes, no seki, so it's dead.

In order to keep the connection to the real world intact, several restrictions of the legal moves apply [...]:
-- Do not pass (as long as legal moves are still available on the board that do not cost you points on purpose).
-- Do not fill your own eyes without any need (e.g. to subdivide a larger one into a two-eye-shape, to defend a critical cutting point)
-- If you have multiple options of creating a sure eye, choose the larger one.
-- Do not play a self-atari (unless you have to create a nakade shape, or play a throw-in etc.).

I think I'm starting to understand the point of this hypothetical position.

Japanese rules 1989
Article 7. Life and death
1. Stones are said to be "alive" if they cannot be captured by the opponent, or if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture. Stones which are not alive are said to be "dead."

So the point of this hypothetical position it to exploit the wording of the definition of life and death in article 7.1.

I apologize for the confusion. I guess that I have an informal version of Japanese rules in mind that does imply eyes or seki to live.

These do not distinguish "real world" from arcana.

how is it possible that countless players around the world can score their (much more complicated) games with little effort. Are they all doing it wrong?

If even that simple final position requires a complex mathematical proof to correctly determine the winner, how is it possible that countless players around the world can score their (much more complicated) games with little effort. Are they all doing it wrong?

Cassandra, when you introduce a tournament-rules-related issue, then do not blame discussion for also proceeding with tournament rules.

... such as H120 with its unrealistic hane-seki.

Author:	gennan [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Gérard TAILLE wrote: Assume komi = 0.5 If the game ends in this position and if the 110 black stones in the upper left corner are considered dead then white wins by 0.5 point. That means that if, in normal play, white takes effectively these 110 black stones then black is sure to win (because by taking the black stones white plays in her territory and looses one point). As a consequence, in the position above white has no choice : white passes and the referee has to decide who is winning. What is the problem. Nobody knows if black can live in the upper left corner (after white makes the capture) and more over nobody knows if black can live under hypothetical play! Maybe we can conclude to a no result by ignorance (and not due to a explicit loop) ? After the players pass, the game is over. Then we determine which stones are dead and remove those from the board (and the game will not be resumed afterwards!). Then the score will be determined. In this case, black's stones in the upper left are obviously dead as is, so white does not have to capture them (not even in hypothetical play) and he wins by 0.5 point. Where is there any problem? I fail to see it.

Author:	RobertJasiek [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:15 am ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
gennan, capturable does not equate death. Look at nakade, snapback and hane-seki.

Author:	gennan [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:20 am ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Indeed. I claim that these stones are obviously dead. Not because they are capturable, but because they are not in a seki and they don't have eyes. I suppose this can be statically evaluated by algorithms such as Benson's.

Author:	RobertJasiek [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
The problem of this position is that such a claim must be verified and proved, and this is complex.

Author:	gennan [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
How is it complex to determine the status of black's block of stones in this position? It looks extremely simple to me: no eyes, no seki, so it's dead. I think most 25k players would have no trouble to determine this in less than 30 seconds.

Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/

No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=18275	Page 3 of 6

Author:	Cassandra [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Gérard TAILLE wrote: What do you mean by saying that standard ruleset is not designed to solve ANY legal POSITION that is possible on the Go board? I assume we can agree that we are talking about (supposed; otherwise there would be no discussion) FINAL positions of the game (i.e. just before the final pass of both players), where your interest is to determine whether a) any side has to invest another move (in order to win) and / or b) a certain group of stones can be considered dead outright. Quote: IOW, how do you recognize that a position is relevant or not to the standard ruleset? It may be obvious for some positions but what about any other positions like Igo Hatsuyôron 120 and many others? Positions during the ACTIVE game phase are no topic of this thread. Quote: Be sure I will not try to convince you about the interest of studying irreal positions! I just try to understand what you consider being a "real" (?) go positions, relevant to the standard ruleset. Nothing else. If your interest really is the study of IRREAL positions, my company on your journey ends here. Because then there is no connection whatsoever to the real world. And I like to apologise for having misunderstood your concern from the very beginning. Would be your interest, however, the discussion of potential RULES BEASTS, it is my understanding that it must be possible to create the position in question in the play phase of a real game, i.e. by alternating moves of both players. In order to keep the connection to the real world intact, several restrictions of the legal moves apply (no claim to completeness): -- Do not pass (as long as legal moves are still available on the board that do not cost you points on purpose). -- Do not fill your own eyes without any need (e.g. to subdivide a larger one into a two-eye-shape, to defend a critical cutting point) -- If you have multiple options of creating a sure eye, choose the larger one. -- Do not play a self-atari (unless you have to create a nakade shape, or play a throw-in etc.). -- Do not sacrifice stones without need. If you discuss RULES BEASTS that do not cover the entire board, it would be helpful to state that this is a principle representation to ease the discussion, to better highlight the relevant parts of it, etc.

Author:	RobertJasiek [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
gennan wrote: How is it complex to determine the status of black's block of stones in this position? It looks extremely simple to me: no eyes, no seki, so it's dead. Go back to the learning corner and do read my commentaries on J1989! Understand capturable-1 and capturable-2! Understand that J1989 does NOT (repeat: N O T) define life by two eyes. Then play the invade at 3-3 to live game.

Author:	gennan [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
If even that simple final position requires a complex mathematical proof to correctly determine the winner, how is it possible that countless players around the world can score their (much more complicated) games with little effort. Are they all doing it wrong?

Author:	gennan [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
I think I'm starting to understand the point of this hypothetical position. Japanese rules 1989 Article 7. Life and death 1. Stones are said to be "alive" if they cannot be captured by the opponent, or if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture. Stones which are not alive are said to be "dead." So the point of this hypothetical position it to exploit the wording of the definition of life and death in article 7.1. I apologize for the confusion. I guess that I have an informal version of Japanese rules in mind that does imply eyes or seki to live.

Author:	Gérard TAILLE [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
gennan wrote: I think I'm starting to understand the point of this hypothetical position. Japanese rules 1989 Article 7. Life and death 1. Stones are said to be "alive" if they cannot be captured by the opponent, or if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture. Stones which are not alive are said to be "dead." So the point of this hypothetical position it to exploit the wording of the definition of life and death in article 7.1. I apologize for the confusion. I guess that I have an informal version of Japanese rules in mind that does imply eyes or seki to live. Yes Gennan you have got the point. Thank you to Robert for his help to explain the point.

Author:	Cassandra [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
RobertJasiek wrote: These do not distinguish "real world" from arcana. Your personal opinion is completely irrelevant here.

Author:	Cassandra [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Quote: Be sure I will not try to convince you about the interest of studying irreal positions! I just try to understand what you consider being a "real" (?) go positions, relevant to the standard ruleset. Nothing else. Just being back from walking my labrador ... In addition to my posting above I would like to distinguish the positions in question (provided these are "real" ones), whether their creation can be considered to be realistic or not. The position that is currently heavily discussed (no "real" one by the way; but let's put this aside for a moment) is unrealistic: -- The building of White's dead blocks of stones would have stopped much earlier, latest when it was clear that these groups could not get a living shape. -- Most important -- in the light of existing knowledge that a 11x10 block of stones in a corner is alive -- White would have had a wild bunch of opportunities to stop the completition of that curious 9x9 block of Black stones. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + However, this position is a good illustrative model for ruleset freaks who want to win a tournament game by their very special knowledge. During hypothetical play, Black would fight like the devil to bring his 3-3-point invasion stone to life. Being well aware of this, White -- in the real world -- would capture Black's block of stones. However, Black would pass like the devil now. And win the game.

Author:	RobertJasiek [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
gennan wrote: how is it possible that countless players around the world can score their (much more complicated) games with little effort. Are they all doing it wrong? They do not apply these rules but likely implicitly use some verbal Japanese rules. Their scoring positions may have more strings and regions but would be much less complicated from a POV of practical status assessment than the difficult positions in this thread.

Author:	Cassandra [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
gennan wrote: If even that simple final position requires a complex mathematical proof to correctly determine the winner, how is it possible that countless players around the world can score their (much more complicated) games with little effort. Are they all doing it wrong? The answer is very simple: These games are REAL AND REALISTIC. During these games, both players perform as expected by the fathers of the rulesets. So they all are doing it right. And the 1 rules beast per 100.000.000 games (if ever noticed) does not reach the surface. It is stopped by an early resignation.

Page 3 of 6	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	RobertJasiek [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Unrealistic is such a nicer word than unreal:) The positions may be contrieved but so are many problems, such as H120 with its unrealistic hane-seki.

Author:	Cassandra [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
RobertJasiek wrote: Cassandra, when you introduce a tournament-rules-related issue, then do not blame discussion for also proceeding with tournament rules. Dear Robert, Google Translate will assist you to search for "tournament" in the Japanese => English translation of the Nihon Kiin 1989 ruleset. You will be unable to find any match, as I stated before. A game of Go -- according to the Nihon Kiin 1989 Rules -- starts with Black's first move and ends with the confirmation of the result by both players, or with their both loss. As far as I understand the text, nothing outside this period / issue is regulated by that Rules. Not even the time-keeping is mentioned. I am afraid that you will be unable to find many followers who are willing to confirm that a single game of Go is a "tournament".

Author:	Cassandra [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
RobertJasiek wrote: ... such as H120 with its unrealistic hane-seki. If the starting position of Inoue Dôsetsu Inseki's masterpiece were realistic, every Go AI could solve that problem with ease. And it would be impossible that an amateur could beat the specialised AI starting from a tiny variation of the main line about 100 moves later. Just as it would be pointless to train every AI on this problem, it would be pointless to take the needs of a few Western rule freaks into account when developing a set of Go rules.

Author:	RobertJasiek [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
In this context, I have not called a single game a tounament. (I did, however, play in subtournaments comprising one game.) Applicability to all positions is a necessity. Studying eccentric positions is a joy.