It is currently Mon Mar 18, 2024 7:44 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #81 Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:31 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 896
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 168
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
CDavis7M wrote:
So you were discussing a rule that is not a rule? ...


You tell me that if I am talking about Japanese rules then I should only use terms found in the NHK rules and now you ask me this when I reply you that I was not just talking about the NHK rules.

CDavis7M wrote:
Also, the reason I bothered to post diagrams is because many people (including you?) here misunderstand how life and death is confirmed in the Japanese Rules. You were describing confirmation of life and death in a manner that is not allowed by the Japanese rules. If you were not talking about the Japanese rules, then your post was just vague because the topic presented in the original post is the Japanese rules.


The diagram was just supposed to illustrate something I was saying, not actually show confirmation of life and death.

This topic is all about different types of ko bans, cycles and what not that is nowhere found in the NHK rules. There is no "no ban in double ko" rule in the NHK rules so the topic exactly matches your "if it's not in the Japanese rules than it's not" criteria.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #82 Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:19 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
CDavis7M wrote:
jann wrote:
I won't repeat what I already wrote, but one more thing: there are cases/shapes where only one side has things to play (several moves even) while the other has to pass. So "B pass, W play, B pass, W play, B pass, W pass" can sometimes be the ONLY meaningful way to finish a game.

Find it for me and I will show you why that's wrong.

The two sides simply not necessarily run out of useful moves at the same time. Random examples:

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

The role of passes is actually one of the more clear issues. On this the text and commentary itself is reasonably clear, and contains useful hints and references (all those "exceptions", as you dismissed). In other, less obvious rule questions your only hint will be common sense and actual practice.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #83 Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:59 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
The role of passes is actually one of the more clear issues.
The roll of the term "pass" is clear. But the original post is about the interpretation of J89 and J89 does not generally allow for a "pass." It allows for "着手の放棄" (move abandoned) and there appears to be confusion on the role of 着手の放棄. While 着手の放棄 might be called a pass (パス, as stated), it is not a "pass" of one's turn, but simply a declaration to stop the game and confirm life and death. Nowhere does J89 does not allow for a stone to be played after a pass (except when resuming the game of before recapturing a ko when confirmation L&D).

Maybe the players don't want to play. But confirmation of life and death can still be conducted, which is a meaningful end to the game, using the definition of 活き石 (alive stone) without any need for one player to play their own stones one after the other while their opponent passes.

==============
jann wrote:
there are cases/shapes where only one side has things to play (several moves even) while the other has to pass. So "B pass, W play, B pass, W play, B pass, W pass" can sometimes be the ONLY meaningful way to finish a game.

Thank you for the 2 examples but I don't see how they require one player to pass again and again to the other player can play again and again.

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

I don't see any need to "pass the play" here. Life and death can be confirmed as is, wihtout playing or "passing your turn."

===================================

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

If the game ends in a position then that is the ending position. I don't see any need to force a different position using passes.
This situation has a ko. But this is not a situation that requires one player to pass again and again to the other player can play again and again.

Now that I think about it, this situation actually shows why it would be bad for the players to be allowed to play after a pass.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #84 Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2021 10:11 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ -----------------
$$ | O O X X X O O |
$$ | X O . X . O X |
$$ | . O X X X O . |
$$ -----------------[/go]
CDavis7M wrote:
I don't see any need to "pass the play" here. Life and death can be confirmed as is, wihtout playing or "passing your turn."

You seem to be unaware of this, but territory scoring rules cannot score points in sekis. So W has to actually capture single B stones in the game, while B keeps passing. Only then will the final scorable (confirmable) position reached.


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ --------------------
$$ | . X O . X O . . . |
$$ | X O O . X O . O . |
$$ | X X X X X O . . . |
$$ -------------------[/go]
Quote:
But this is not a situation that requires one player to pass again and again to the other player can play again and again. In fact, that player should not do that.

Now that I think about it, this situation actually shows why it would be bad for the players to be allowed to play after a pass.

The above shape is a mannenko. Only W can win and fill the ko (B would die if he tried it). So W will need to capture the ko then fill it, while B keeps passing. Only then will the final scorable position reached.

(BTW this is one of the examples that prompted some historical disputes, before your approach was finally abolished and modern rules principles laid down.)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #85 Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:33 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
You seem to be unaware of this, but territory scoring rules cannot score points in sekis. So W has to actually capture single B stones in the game.
First of all, this is a scorable position. Life and Death can be confirmed as I said. There is no need to pass. I did understood that white doesn't score eyes in seki, but I did miss that dead stones in seki cannot become prisoners even though dead. So thank you for highlighting the issue. Still, the Japanese rules do not allow for passing a turn during the game and there is no reason for the Japanese rules to do so. Confirmation of Life and Death allows passing and can score all situations. Maybe if the Even on the 7x3, this "problem" is practically impossible. And it's not actually a problem as the rules allow the players to easily end and resume the game to get an actual turn-pass (rather than the abandoned move, which is allows). The players do not need to pass their turn during the game.
jann wrote:
The above shape is a mannenko. Only W can win and fill the ko (B would die if he tried it). So W will need to capture the ko then fill it, while B keeps passing. Only then will the final scorable position reached.
No, there is already a scorable position. White doesn't need to capture while black passes. This position is scorable according to rules on confirmation of life and death (which can use passes) without using passes in the actual game.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #86 Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2021 11:46 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
CDavis7M wrote:
And it's not actually a problem as the rules allow the players to easily end and resume the game to get an actual turn-pass (rather than the abandoned move, which is allows). The players do not need to pass their turn during the game.

I wrote this as a joke in the other topic. :) Never thought you'd seriously consider N resumptions for N dead stone captures from sekis, even now...

Quote:
jann wrote:
The above shape is a mannenko. Only W can win and fill the ko (B would die if he tried it). So W will need to capture the ko then fill it, while B keeps passing. Only then will the final scorable position reached.
No, there is already a scorable position. White doesn't need to capture while black passes.

The first written version of the Japanese rules contained an explicit mention that in mannenkos, if neither side wants to start the ko (ie. approach and convert to a do or die step ko), the player who can win and fill the ko for seki must do so. The above position is NOT a scorable final position.

The 1989 version does not contain such explicit rule anymore since it became unnecessary. Passes (even as ko threats) now allow reaching the same final position (and the correct score, which is different after W ko capture) naturally.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #87 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:56 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
And it's not actually a problem as the rules allow the players to easily end and resume the game to get an actual turn-pass (rather than the abandoned move, which is allows). The players do not need to pass their turn during the game.
I wrote this as a joke in the other topic. :) Never thought you'd seriously consider N resumptions for N dead stone captures from sekis, even now...
It is a practically impossible situation that is easily handled by the rules if needed. There is no issue. I can't believe that you prefer to make believe rules that do not exist just because you think the game should work that way. I just read the rules and follow them. I have no obsession with working my will on them.
jann wrote:
The 1989 version does not contain such explicit rule anymore since it became unnecessary. Passes (even as ko threats) now allow reaching the same final position (and the correct score, which is different after W ko capture) naturally.
Right, the rules cover this situation. Passes are allowed (required even) when confirming Life and Death. That does not mean that passes are allowed during the game.

And under the rules you are describing, it would be practically impossible for the game to have no other move that could be made during mannenko resolution other than a pass. A pass is necessary to achieve a scorable position in any practical situation.

The game allows "alternating play." That's it. You can pass to begin L&D confirmation but there is no allowance to pass before then. Anything not allowed by the rules is not allowed in the game.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #88 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:59 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
CDavis7M wrote:
Passes are allowed (required even) when confirming Life and Death. That does not mean that passes are allowed during the game.

Neither capturing dead stones from sekis, nor capturing mannenkos are possible during confirmation. These moves need to be played in actual play, while the opponent keeps passing.

Quote:
it would be practically impossible for the game to have no other move that could be made during mannenko resolution other than a pass.

In territory scoring any move other than dame costs a point, and dame is not always available.

Quote:
The game allows "alternating play." That's it. You can pass to begin L&D confirmation but there is no allowance to pass before then.

Although neither J49 nor J89 (something in between), wagc rules even spell the opposite out explicitly.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #89 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 2:02 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
Neither capturing dead stones from sekis, nor capturing mannenkos are possible during confirmation. These moves need to be played in actual play, while the opponent keeps passing.
These moves do not need to be played. There is no failure in the game or rules if this does not happen. A mannenko IS a seki regardless of whether the stone is captured or not. If capturing a stone from a seki or a mannenko is desired because of the score, the Japanese Rules allow for easy resumption of the game. It's no big deal.

If the resumption rules already provide a solution for capturing dead stones within a seki, then it is better rules design to not have additional unnecessary rules to achieve the same result.

If Life & Death confirmation already allows life/death to be determined using passing in that context (which achieves results that cannot be achieved by play), then it is better rules design to allow passing in that context and to not have a separate unnecessary allowance in other contexts. Just use the rules already available.

jann wrote:
wagc rules even spell the opposite out explicitly.
It's totally fine to have a different ruleset. There is nothing terrible with passing. It's just unnecessary and allows for griefing.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #90 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:29 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
CDavis7M wrote:
These moves do not need to be played. There is no failure in the game or rules if this does not happen. A mannenko IS a seki regardless of whether the stone is captured or not.

How mannenko should be handled is not open to any interpretation, because earlier versions of the text explicitly mentioned this as a precedent: one side must capture it and connect to make seki. (Not capturing would even make 1 point difference.)

Quote:
the Japanese Rules allow for easy resumption of the game.

Resumption is not the same as directly continuing normal play, partly because whoever resumes must let the opponent move first. So if a player made a mistake of passing too early (leaving his group vulnerable after the opponent's last move), the opponent is allowed to play immediately and punish that mistake. Requesting resumption would not make that possible (player would realize and protect before, since he would get to move first).

Quote:
If Life & Death confirmation already allows life/death to be determined using passing in that context (which achieves results that cannot be achieved by play), then it is better rules design to allow passing in that context and to not have a separate unnecessary allowance in other contexts. Just use the rules already available.

You are free to use "good rules design" in your own rules (if you honestly think of inconsistence like that). But with some experience you will find that in many cases "rules already available" only come in the form of indirect hints and actual practice. Japanese text doesn't spell out everything literally, you also need to read between the lines. If playing after opponent's pass is explicitly mentioned in resumption, and also explicitly mentioned in confirmation, that is strong hint that it is naturally ok in main game as well, even if the text doesn't happen to show explicit example of that too.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #91 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:31 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
If playing after opponent's pass is explicitly mentioned in resumption, and also explicitly mentioned in confirmation, that is strong hint that it is naturally ok in main game as well, even if the text doesn't happen to show explicit example of that too.
That's like saying "since dead stones being taken off the board is explicitly mentioned in the victory decision phase, and removing stones is also mentioned during the game phase, that is a strong hint that it is naturally ok in the main game take a group of stones off the board if they meet the definition of dead stones." If this statement is bogus, then so is passing during game-play.

But that's not how games rules work. An allowance for an action in one situation does not apply to other situations.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #92 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:08 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 445
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 37
Japanese rules already define pass and board play as valid actions in main game. The question is only an artificial restriction of their use that you invented ("no board play after opponent's pass").

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #93 Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:42 am 
Oza

Posts: 3644
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4620
I think we may be getting to the heart of the matter. I think also I may be cross-referencing threads, and I know that's confusing because I'm already confused by all these similar-sounding threads. But...

Quote:
But that's not how games rules work. An allowance for an action in one situation does not apply to other situations.


But that's not how language rules work.

Although all humans share the same attributes, we have them in varying proportions, and for historical and geographical reasons clusters occur that can be described as cultural differences. We are here talking about Japan, and one of the most famous studies of cultural differences was Ruth Benedict's analysis of Japanese culture as opposed to the West's. Japan was a shame culture; the West's was a guilt culture. We say to a child you MUSTN'T do that. Japanese say that it's SHAMEFUL to do that. The study is now regarded as flawed in several respects, and I'm oversimplifying. But the core idea that cultural differences exist (within a state as well as between states) seems valid and useful.

Forgetting shame and guilt, a common divide we see in discussions of rules is what we can roughly describe as prescriptive and descriptive sides. The prescriptive side has a loud voice in the West. When you a see of rules in English, you instinctively assume there is an unspoken introduction that says, "This is what you MUST do and what CAN do." Japanese texts by and large are descriptive and start with a different unspoken assumption: "This is what WE JAPANESE (or WE PROS) do."

Both approaches can lead to confusion and arguments. The question is not automatically which approach is better, but which approach is actually in force. In the case of Japanese rules, the Japanese descriptive approach is obviously in force. Any attempt to wrestle the Japanese text into a western-style prescriptive text is doomed to failure, and is fundamentally dishonest.

A characteristic of prescriptive texts is that the writer will try to define words and concepts first and then try to fit all the following text to those definitions. It's a worthy goal, perhaps, but typically leads to constipated language, and it ignores the human propensity to bring up new or freak conditions and to say, "Ah, but if...?"

A characteristic of descriptive texts is that they very much depend on language, Instead of constipation they can lead to diarrhoea. A change of era or fashion can lead to words altering meaning or nuance, and can have the same effect as a change of diet. People from one generation or culture or background can see the same words in different ways.

Despite that, on the whole most people seem to prefer descriptive texts to prescriptive ones. We seem to resent any attempts to control us. A deeper analysis may be that prescriptivists are seeking ORDER. Descriptivists are seeking HARMONY.

If I'm right about that, and also if I'm right in saying that the Japanese rules are descriptive, a huge amount depends on language.

That means the onus is on us, in this case, to sort out what the Japanese are describing. In other posts I have tried to pinpoint a lot of the prior debate on rules in Japan that informed their attempts to write rules. There are many other parts of the context that I haven't touched on (e.g. parallel attempts to internationalise go, or even a touch of nationalism). It is that whole context that gives words, even technical terms, their nuances. It goes without saying that Japanese nuances are different from western nuances (and American nuances differ from English, etc). So how do we grasp those different nuances?

What I am leading up to is really for CDavis, as he has mentioned using DeepL and jisho for translations, because they are free. I suspect that may be a problem. I would suggest he should buy a proper paper dictionary rather than a copy of Games of Shuei.

Computer/app dictionaries, at least the free ones, seem to be generated by computer nerds just piling up unordered lists of words. Translation programs, at least the free ones, rely on looking for matching phrases in as large an unchecked corpus as possible and damn the context. That's fine if you just want a quick fix and your life doesn't depend on it. But if you really want to start on the (endless!) path of understanding the nuances, you need a dictionary lovingly prepared by a linguist who understands both languages and language in general. The differences are rarely immediately apparent, but a good linguist's dictionary is compiled in such a way that the nuances are weighted and ordered and (especially important) they pick up on the points that most often cause confusion. For Japanese I would therefore strongly recommend buying Kenkyusha (the "Green Goddess"), the old not the new Nelson, and Martin's reference grammar. They may be expensive but they will last a lifetime. I have over 300 dictionaries (and my wife has been known to complain she lives in a library). Nowadays I very rarely have to consult them, and if I do it's usually the 13-volume Morohashi Chinese-Japanese dictionary, which I like because it tends to give you the various nuances in source (i.e. date) order, rather like the OED. But despite their lack of current use, I treasure these books. Indeed, the Morohashi is on a shelf of its own facing me as I type, and every time I look up I see it and a warm glow comes over me.

Then I turn back to Rules19 and a cold shiver comes over me...


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: CDavis7M
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #94 Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 4:37 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 896
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 168
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
John Fairbairn wrote:
A characteristic of prescriptive texts is that the writer will try to define words and concepts first and then try to fit all the following text to those definitions. It's a worthy goal, perhaps, but typically leads to constipated language, and it ignores the human propensity to bring up new or freak conditions and to say, "Ah, but if...?"


I can only really judge from the English translation. It does define terms and leaves very little undefined. It then ploughs through commentaries and 25 examples. Applying the rules deductively and showing the details every time something is demonstrated for the first time. It is actually not trivial to find positions to contradict the approach that is demonstrated in the examples. There must have been a lot of work that went into making this as a "prescriptive" text.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #95 Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 7:20 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
Although all humans share the same attributes, we have them in varying proportions, and for historical and geographical reasons clusters occur that can be described as cultural differences. We are here talking about Japan, and one of the most famous studies of cultural differences was Ruth Benedict's analysis of Japanese culture as opposed to the West's. Japan was a shame culture; the West's was a guilt culture. We say to a child you MUSTN'T do that. Japanese say that it's SHAMEFUL to do that. The study is now regarded as flawed in several respects, and I'm oversimplifying. But the core idea that cultural differences exist (within a state as well as between states) seems valid and useful.

Forgetting shame and guilt, a common divide we see in discussions of rules is what we can roughly describe as prescriptive and descriptive sides. The prescriptive side has a loud voice in the West. When you a see of rules in English, you instinctively assume there is an unspoken introduction that says, "This is what you MUST do and what CAN do." Japanese texts by and large are descriptive and start with a different unspoken assumption: "This is what WE JAPANESE (or WE PROS) do."

If "guilt culture's" analysis shows that the intended results of J89's L&D Examples can be reached under a prescriptive ban of cycles, it does not make any sense to whine around in that "guilt culture's" world that the "shame culture" has not explicitly described that utilising cycles is considered being shameful, as e.g. CDavis7M did repeatedly.

Both cultures being different, the reasoning for reaching an identical result can be different as well. This difference does not matter, as each reasoning is only valid inside one of both culture areas.

_________________
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: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #96 Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:38 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
John Fairbairn wrote:
Japanese texts by and large are descriptive and start with a different unspoken assumption: "This is what WE JAPANESE (or WE PROS) do." ... In the case of Japanese rules, the Japanese descriptive approach is obviously in force. Any attempt to wrestle the Japanese text into a western-style prescriptive text is doomed to failure, and is fundamentally dishonest...If I'm right about that, and also if I'm right in saying that the Japanese rules are descriptive, a huge amount depends on language.
Ok. If that is the case then I can agree that Japanese Go Rules are descriptive of what Japanese professionals do. And Japanese professional Go players do not needlessly pass in the middle of the game so it is not mentioned in the descriptive rules of what Japanese Professionals do. Passing is only used to resolve life & death and end-of-game and so it is only mentioned there.

In that case, if someone needlessly passes in the middle of the game (just because they are so far ahead), it does not mean that they have broken the Japanese Rules. It just turns out that they are actually not playing Japanese Go at all, whether they intended to, or wanted to, or not. From the way that they are playing it must be some other version of Go (likely computer-centric Go). So, it still does not make sense to talk about the Japanese Rules while also discussing passing in the middle of the game.

John Fairbairn wrote:
What I am leading up to is really for CDavis, as he has mentioned using DeepL and jisho for translations, because they are free. I suspect that may be a problem. I would suggest he should buy a proper paper dictionary rather than a copy of Games of Shuei...I have over 300 dictionaries (and my wife has been known to complain she lives in a library). Nowadays I very rarely have to consult them
Well, if you have any spare dictionaries you could put them up for sale: https://lifein19x19.com/viewforum.php?f=20


Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Oct 05, 2021 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #97 Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 11:35 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
J89's legal text starts (amoung other things) with a declaration that these rules MUST be operated on the basis of good spirit.
Article 1 states the purpose of the game being a competition for more or less territory.
Article 10, Clause 2 states that prisoners reduce opponent's territory.

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

NOT capturing Black's marked stones violates Article 1 (in conjunction with the demand for "good spirit"), as White would NOT strive for "less" Black territory.
Thus, the game cannot stop with this position on the board.

Black's first "pass" cannot be a declaration that the game might stop, as there still will be Black stones remaining on the board that must also be taken off.
Considering Black's first "pass" being a declaration that the game might stop, would be a violation of the demand for "good spirit".

AFTER all Black's marked stones have been taken off the board, Black's SECOND "pass" indeed is a declaration that the game might stop.

A "pass" cannot be a "declaration that the game might stop", as long as there are still obviously valuable moves remaining on the board, which affect "more or less territory".

_________________
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: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #98 Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 11:45 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
note: the threads are getting crossed again. This really seems more related to "superko is bad game design" thread.

Cassandra wrote:
A "pass" cannot be a "declaration that the game might stop", as long as there are still obviously valuable moves remaining on the board, which affect "more or less territory".
You can keep trying but we have already discussed that at the end-of-game, the Japanese rules allow for resuming and passing, and there is no misunderstanding of context between the players. If one player passes to end the game, the other player does not need to bother with formally resuming the game. The players already have had a meeting of the minds as to whether the game can be resumed and the turn passed. They may continue with end-of-game actions.
======
Cassandra wrote:
A "pass" cannot be a "declaration that the game might stop", as long as there are still obviously valuable moves remaining on the board, which affect "more or less territory".
"Stopping" the game doesn't mean actually finishing the game prevent capturing stones. Resumption at the end-of-game phase to finish off these moves is easily allowed. Passing is a declaration to stop the game. Not a declaration to score the game.
=====
Cassandra wrote:
NOT capturing Black's marked stones violates Article 1 (in conjunction with the demand for "good spirit"), as White would NOT strive for "less" Black territory.
I never disagreed that it was not "good spirit." I just said that there was no issue with scoring or gameplay in this position.

Also, your argument on "good spirit" contradicts what you previously said that was the start of this whole discussion:
Cassandra wrote:
A "pass" is nothing more than a waiver of this right. The waiver of this right does not carry another message than "You may exercise your right." (I do not mind, as I am so large ahead.
So I guess the end of this discussion you cannot be pass in the middle of the game under the Japanese rules just because you are "so large ahead" as that would violate "good spirit." This is not how Japanese professionals play. If you want to pass in the middle of the game, you are not playing Japanese Go.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #99 Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 12:09 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
Also, your argument on "good spirit" contradicts what you previously said that was the start of this whole discussion:
Cassandra wrote:
A "pass" is nothing more than a waiver of this right. The waiver of this right does not carry another message than "You may exercise your right." (I do not mind, as I am so large ahead.
So I guess the end of this discussion you cannot be pass in the middle of the game under the Japanese rules just because you are "so large ahead" as that would violate "good spirit." This is not how Japanese professionals play. If you want to pass in the middle of the game, you are not playing Japanese Go.

You should not take everything literally and out of context.

_________________
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: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Post #100 Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 12:21 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1308
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
Resumption at the end-of-game phase to finish off these moves is easily allowed. Passing is a declaration to stop the game. Not a declaration to score the game.

Do you really want to say that Black is allowed to start the resumed game with a "pass", stating that the game should be stopped?
Do you really want to say that White is allowed to play a real move after Black's suggestion to stop the game?

Don't you think that this is where the bat bites its own tail?

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group