It is currently Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:32 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #101 Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:23 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 380
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 32
I just noticed an interesting comment in J89. In commentary on 7.2:

Quote:
If a player whose stone has been captured in a ko has passed for that particular ko
...
the situation for that ko is the same as if the game had been resumed: the player may now capture in that ko again

This liberal phrasing and the "as if the game had been resumed" seems present in the current Japanese text as well (with slighly more verbosity). I'm not sure how literally this can be taken, but this also supports the interpretation that passing for a certain ko in confirmation is only required once - after which it reverts to a normal ko (behaves like in resumption) for the player (thus no double ko flaw / closed loop).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #102 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:57 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 186
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 26
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
I just noticed an interesting comment in J89. In commentary on 7.2:

Quote:
If a player whose stone has been captured in a ko has passed for that particular ko
...
the situation for that ko is the same as if the game had been resumed: the player may now capture in that ko again

This liberal phrasing and the "as if the game had been resumed" seems present in the current Japanese text as well (with slighly more verbosity). I'm not sure how literally this can be taken, but this also supports the interpretation that passing for a certain ko in confirmation is only required once - after which it reverts to a normal ko (behaves like in resumption) for the player (thus no double ko flaw / closed loop).
This is jumping to conclusions. If you look at the actual example, the question is whether black needs to play A to reinforce after "wining" the ko. The answer is YES because otherwise black is dead.

Back to your statement, the reason that black is dead is because even though the most recent move in the game was black taking the ko, white can immediately retake the ko because this is treated as if the game were resumed with white to play (black has passed).

There is no suggestion anywhere in the Examples that passing for the ko once is sufficient such that passes no longer need to be made to retake (e.g., others moves being played is sufficient as in normal gameplay).

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #103 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:46 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 380
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 32
There was no definite conclusion so no jumping either. The notice was not about the actual example but about a side comment in the commentary which may shed some light on how pass for ko is supposed to work and be interpreted ("the situation for that ko is the same as if the game had been resumed").

Also you really should use the English version, your comments doesn't really make sense and sound like you refer to some misunderstood Japanese (you mix up reinforcement in game vs reinforcement in hypothetical play (which is free), also mix up pass for ko vs recapturing after the opponent's pass).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #104 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:40 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 186
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 26
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
Also you really should use the English version, your comments doesn't really make sense and sound like you refer to some misunderstood Japanese (you mix up reinforcement in game vs reinforcement in hypothetical play (which is free), also mix up pass for ko vs recapturing after the opponent's pass).

The conclusion that was jumped to was the conclusion that this statement in the rule comments supports the linked interpretation.

Also, I don't think I was mixing things up. I understand that a reinforcement can be played after the game is stopped. But if an additional stone needs to be played to prove life and death status because playing it could begin a double ko that can't be stopped, then it might seem as if that stone is required. But it's not required to be played. The reason that it's not required is because life and death status is defined by the examples (as precedent) without any need to "play it out". I'm just starting from the board position in the examples as they are given. The way that they work is by definition.

I don't even want to get started on the original post.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kvasir 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