It is currently Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:40 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #21 Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:39 pm 
Judan

Posts: 5506
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 745
jann wrote:
a local enable rule is almost as big a theoretical flaw as a global ko pass.


In which sense do you speak of a "theoretical flaw"? What, IYO, is the theoretical flaw of a local enable rule? What, IYO, is the theoretical flaw of a global ko pass?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #22 Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:23 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1210
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 136
Rank: German 1 Kyu
"Local enable" is just as little a theoretical flaw as "global enable" or "rebirth enable" is.
"Global ko-pass" is just as little a theoretical flaw as "ko-pass for every single ko" or "no ko-pass" is.

In each case (and also each combination of these) a consistent, error-prone ruleset can be built around.

You may not like the game that comes out of it.
However, this is SOLELY a result of your unfulfilled expectiations.
If you can't live with that, just play another game. There is more than enough choice.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #23 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:30 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 380
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 32
RobertJasiek wrote:
What, IYO, is the theoretical flaw of a global ko pass?
jann wrote:
The theoretical defect of such rule is it may allow passing for two remote ko fights in one move, for non-Japanese results

RobertJasiek wrote:
What, IYO, is the theoretical flaw of a local enable rule?
jann wrote:
You definitely want to detect ANY kind of problem with a capture, never allow throwing away large parts without consequence

RobertJasiek wrote:
In which sense do you speak of a "theoretical flaw"?

In both of the above cases the problem is the same: the rule invention does not correspond to a meaningful go concept.

  • A local ko pass rule (as used in Japanese rules) has a theoretical meaning of complete ko isolation.
  • A global enable rule (again as used in J89) has a theoretical meaning of detecting any kind of negative consequence/compensation anywhere that may be attached to the capture, which could mean it is not really a simple dead stone capture from sure territory.

A global ko pass rule and a local enable rule can easily lead to incorrect results (see the examples in this thread for both) because they are random inventions without such theoretical ground.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #24 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:33 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1210
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 136
Rank: German 1 Kyu
jann wrote:
A global ko pass rule and a local enable rule can easily lead to incorrect results (see the examples in this thread for both) because they are random inventions without such theoretical ground.

What is YOUR "incorrect" based on IN the respective rule set(s)?

Are YOU sure YOU are IN the right game?
Why don't YOU play a game that follows YOUR interpretation of "meaningful"?

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #25 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:42 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1210
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 136
Rank: German 1 Kyu
jann wrote:
A global ko pass rule and a local enable rule can easily lead to incorrect results (see the examples in this thread for both) because they are random inventions without such theoretical ground.

Same task as for Gérard in another thread:

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

Reverse tsume-go.
Please be so kind to show us the last seven moves before this position was reached.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #26 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:48 am 
Judan

Posts: 5506
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 745
First are the rules, then come the strategic concepts.

Do you want to make that

First are the strategic concepts, then come the rules?

If one invents a new game, rules design can fit to produce some desired strategic concepts. Go is an exception to game design because rules and strategic concepts were developed in parallel. Even worse, Japanese professional players developed their particular understanding of some desired dependency between rules and strategic concepts but furthermore changed it over time.

Life was perceived as a local concept unless covering the whole board but play for clarifying local life is global. Ko is both local as to currently prohibited intersections and global as to availability of plays.

Hence, it is difficult to identify a rules concept as a flaw on the grounds of general concepts.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #27 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:21 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 380
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 32
RobertJasiek wrote:
First are the rules, then come the strategic concepts.
Do you want to make that
First are the strategic concepts, then come the rules?

Even when creating a new game from scratch you need rules that are not too arbitrary and carry some concept, to get people interested and convince them there is intellectual value in your game. With Go, the game and its rules already exist for a long time. So not only your newly written rules need to be convincing and consistent, they need to match the real game as well.

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

In the wider version of this example, the bent4 corner itself seem to be alive in your rules. Capturing enables a new permanent W stone on dame next to his 10 stones, barely within your enable region. But your rules are not consistent. It matters if the right side is single ko or double ko (since your ko pass works vs double kos and vs non-ko-based threats, only not vs single kos), and it also depends on the middle (since your enable rule doesn't see the right edge, it matters if B or W gets the last play on dame after the seki collapses).

In comparison, Japanese rules say something like "bent4 is dead since ko fight is not allowed in confirmation, it doesn't matter if the unremovable threat is near or far, neither if it is single ko, double ko or something else". Which can be questioned of course (Japanese isn't my rules preference), but at least it's logical and consistent.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #28 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:05 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
jann wrote:
RobertJasiek wrote:
First are the rules, then come the strategic concepts.
Do you want to make that
First are the strategic concepts, then come the rules?

Even when creating a new game from scratch you need rules that are not too arbitrary and carry some concept, to get people interested and convince them there is intellectual value in your game. With Go, the game and its rules already exist for a long time. So not only your newly written rules need to be convincing and consistent, they need to match the real game as well.

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

In the wider version of this example, the bent4 corner itself seem to be alive in your rules. Capturing enables a new permanent W stone on dame next to his 10 stones, barely within your enable region. But your rules are not consistent. It matters if the right side is single ko or double ko (since your ko pass works vs double kos and vs non-ko-based threats, only not vs single kos), and it also depends on the middle (since your enable rule doesn't see the right edge, it matters if B or W gets the last play on dame after the seki collapses).

In comparison, Japanese rules say something like "bent4 is dead since ko fight is not allowed in confirmation, it doesn't matter if the unremovable threat is near or far, neither if it is single ko, double ko or something else". Which can be questioned of course (Japanese isn't my rules preference), but at least it's logical and consistent.

BTW what is the result in J2003 for the above position. It seems all groups are alive except the four white stones at the right => black wins by 11 points. Is it true?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #29 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:23 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 380
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 32
You got me thinking for a moment - nice point on the 4 stones! :)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #30 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:07 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1210
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 136
Rank: German 1 Kyu
Simply allow hypothetical play inside local-2 only, and everything will be fine.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J2003 problem
Post #31 Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:47 pm 
Judan

Posts: 5506
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 745
"J2003 not consistent": What you mean is that different remote environments can result in different local LD status. I agree that J2003 should be improved for the sake of better modelling intention of Japanese professional players.

Concerning specific examples, it is necessary to show that they would remain final positions to be relevant.

Japanese 1989 rules do not say something like bent4 is dead since ko fight is not allowed in confirmation but are independent of the specific shape (bent-4), allow some ko fight but rewrite the confirmation rules to restrict such a ko fight to hopefully make it ineffective.

J1989 intention logical and consistent? Uh, what a joke. First of all, the intention would have to be stated unequivocally.

Allow hypothetical play inside local-2 only? Maybe this solves things but needs exhaustive testing. It might be fine if all examples behave well but local-only play violates the spirit of global play in go.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

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