Ideas for Japanese-style rules

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri May 28, 2010 9:17 pm

Cassandra, concerning your analysis of example #4 and when determining the status of White's upper side string, please add an explanation of HOW YOUR RULES APPLY! You only show one sequence with the comment "White's chain is eliminated." but you fail to explain what that means for how your rules might have to be applied here.

Concerning the upper black string, what is the relevance of "If she does nothing, we return to the sequence before." WRT to HOW YOUR RULES APPLY and in particular how should we combine consideration of two move-sequences for one particular question of rules application?

I do not understand "have become part of a Black 2-eyed group" because you have not defined "2-eyed group" clearly yet. (Besides, if what we see is a 2-eyed group, then why was the initial black group not also already 2-eyed?)

"White cannot do anything with Black's chain in the corner, so this one is '2-eyed'": Why should not being able to do anything be sufficient for an application of your rules?! They do not have a condition "the opponent cannot do anything", right?

Your conclusion "So we have White chains in status c)" too rash. Please explain why, according to your rules, they are not of the status "can be eleminated completely". You assess status string by string and your sequence for the upper white string has shown it being eliminated completely, has it not?!

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri May 28, 2010 9:20 pm

To give the thread title a proper meaning, here are ideas for Japanese style rules:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html# ... StyleRules

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html# ... mmentaries

palapiku · Post by **palapiku** » Fri May 28, 2010 10:27 pm

What is the point of all this?

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri May 28, 2010 11:24 pm

Of all what? Cassandra's rules sketch or the discussion on it?

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Fri May 28, 2010 11:34 pm

Cassandra, "a player must not immediately recapture a stone, which just captured one of his stones" is wrong but "a player may not immediately play a single stone to recapture a single stone, which just captured one of his stones" is clear provided you do state a basic ko rule at all. ALA you do not, it would remain unclear which basic ko rule you mean.
Dear Robert, as I wrote several times before, I will not discuss wording any longer with you. I'm aware that you have invented several new terms with a very special meaning, but I thing that you have to accept if someone else uses another consistent terminology.

Giving a player only a rough idea is insufficient. The rules must always give the player a clear idea of their intention.
I'm not aware that your rule texts give a clear intention to the "normal" reader.

Put it on the board: A position one play before either a double ko seki or a triple ko. Read http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/mistakes.html if you cannot construct such a position. Now the player having the turn is faced with the strategic choice between "The game will have the score result X." and "The game will have the result 'no result'.". To make this strategic choice, he must choose whichever is better for him. Since "no result" is uncomparable with any score X, the player CANNOT MEANINGFULLY make the decision at all. He cannot know which of the score result X and the result "no result" is better for him or whether both are equally good. It is impossible to know this for anybody since the rules fail to define it and since "no result" is not part of the ordered set of numbers, of which X is an element. In fact, "no result" is not even a number at all.
I will not discuss this topic any longer, Robert. It seems to me that you cannot accept the clear distinction between "Play", "Evaluate", and "Count". Any further discussion is meaningless, if you continue to mix these stages up.

So the effect of a repeated situation during evaluation of some particular string is NOT that the no result rule would apply but the effect is that you need YET ANOTHER KO RULE, which says that the no result rule is not applied during Evalution and how to interpret recurrence / infinite sequences during Evaluation. Was it you wishing some sort of simple ko rules for the non-basic-ko cases?!
No, Robert. In Japanese, it is very important to listen to what has not been said. If the termination conditions of case A and case B cannot be reached, case C will apply without saying.

"2-eyed" is a terrible name when it is "more than 2 [eyes]". The common name is "n-eye-formation", where n>=2.
I know your problem with this kind of wording. But as I wrote before, all eyes beyond eye number 2 do not have to do anything with the status of a chain.

Of course, since you evaluate each string separately, you are absolutely ignorant about string set transitivity WRT to "2-eyed".
The explaining examples created especially for you have not been designed yet.

Here is an easy example of what we know as a double threat connection problem:
Your example will be processed as follows.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ------------------------- $$ |. . . . . . X . . . . . .| $$ |X X X X X X X X X X X X X| $$ |. O O O O O X O O O O O 3| $$ |X O . O . O X O . O . O B| $$ |X O O O O X 2 B O O O O B| $$ |X X X X X X O B B B B B B| $$ |O O O O O O O O O O O O O| $$ |. . . . . . O . . . . . .| $$ -------------------------[/go]

I suppose it will be sufficient to concentrate on Black's right hand chain, marked here. This chain is not "2-eyed" yet, so White probably has a chance. I suppose you have White's cutting move at 2 in mind. Black will connect at 3; now the string is "2-eyed".

Now don't tell me that you could not find that yourself.
As should have become clear, Robert, your example provides no problem. So there is no need to think about it as a very special case.

If you cannot even know ("Nor can I.") your own intentions of what your rules shall achieve, then stop pretending to design rules!
See above.

This is a 3-eye-formation:

This is not a 3-eye-formation:
I know your thinking about this. It's not mine. I think that you refrain from possibilities to simplify the application of what you seem to have in mind.

Now you have to know for your own rules design whether the latter shall fall under "has 2 eyes or more". If yes, then your rules do not work (yet) since you have not defined "has 2 eyes or more" yet.
The examples for you are ongoing, Robert.

Your statement "'Chain' is something that in general you have to treat in whole like one single stone. If there an effect arises that is only possible with chains, you must keep it separated from rules for stones." does not explain which "equivalence" you might mean. In particular, one new stone under one of an initial string's stones is also "an effect that is only possible with chains".
Important is not the process, but what can be seen after the dust has settled.

Since it is a problem for every ruleset to decide upon incomplete and unfinished games, how do yours apply to them? Study some examples, please!
This is a problem of tournament rules, Robert, so I will not discuss it here.

I do not see any definition of "eye" from you. Give it!
I think I have given one. It seems to be of a kind that you do not have on your radar screen.

For a 360-stones-string, show me HOW YOUR RULES APPLY to yield the status "removable"! Start by removing, then place a stone on 3-3 and then continue with a (rough) explanation.
I suppose that you know that it is impossible to prevent at least one living group of each color on a 19x19 board. By the way, it is irrelevant for the outcome of your example game, whether the status of the 360-stones chain is "stable" or "removable". There is nothing "alive" on the board, which could generate territory or force the chain to be taken off the board.

In this thread, I use "life" for one of two different purposes:

1) As an informal abbreviation of your "already has two eyes (minimum) or can get two eyes or can be captured, but the complete captured shape can be filled again with stones, which will become part of a 2-eyed group".

2) As a property of a string or strings under (especially) Japanese style rules.
"Life" is not necessary, Robert. Generally speaking, you can choose of two directions.

Start with defining status of chains.
Start with defining "life" as a property of a chain.

The second one will prove much more complicated. As you will have learned over years, I suppose.

Of course, you pretend to be ignorant about the relevance of earlier, general insight about (2) life for your rules... Let me assure you though that I am not that ignorant. Your rules do not invent a new game other than Go but they want to create something more or less familiar to Go players. As such they ought to recreate life, as it is previously known, as well as possible at least for its basic nature. However, your rules appear to fail to model even these basics. What you thus get is not, as you wanted, Japanese style rules any longer but non-Japanese style territory scoring rules. So if your rules continue like that, they are a failure in terms of their intentions. (Note that I do not care at all whether you recreate all J1989 Rules' diagrams.)
I'm looking forward to receiving an example, which would prove an inconsistency in my ideas.

As I wrote in the introduction, it can be no problem, if some of the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules examples will be treated with another result. Because there is the general meaning, that they are inconsistent.

The scoring is Japanese-style. Written in other words, territory is everything inside chains of only one colour, which have not got the status "in Seki".

Harleqin · Post by **Harleqin** » Sat May 29, 2010 2:30 am

Cassandra wrote:I thought that "a player must not immediately recapture a stone, which just captured one of his / her stones" would be clear enough.

Snapback.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sat May 29, 2010 2:45 am

Harleqin wrote:
Cassandra wrote:I thought that "a player must not immediately recapture a stone, which just captured one of his / her stones" would be clear enough.

Snapback.

In my opinion, "Uttegaeshi" is not possible with a one-stone chain.

Perhaps you have another kind of move in mind with "Snapback" ?

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sat May 29, 2010 2:59 am

Your attempt to find a wording for a basic ko rule ("a player must not immediately recapture a stone, which just captured one of his stones") has a problem with its contents much more than its wording. Your text can be read as if prohibiting also snapback. If you do not want to discuss wording, then get the contents of your rules at least right so far that your wording does not imply wrong contents.

I am precisely aware of the distinction between "Play", "Evaluate", and "Count". However, keeping that distinction 100% means that during Play the players can never know whether their moves are good or bad because they know nothing about results. All their move decisions would be completely meaningless. At the very least, the resulting scores must cross the boundary between Play and Evaluate. Similarly the result "neither victory nor defeat" and its strategic comparison score value must cross that boundary. The players need to know the result of every game situation BEFORE they make their next moves. Think about why you do make a move in your game! Because you want to increase the score, which Evaluate will determine, in your favour! This is possible only if you do have access to what Evaluate will output as results. This is so regardless of whether you do not want to continue discussion of it.

I have understood your intention "If the termination conditions of case A and case B cannot be reached, case C will apply without saying.". So, during evaluation of a particular string, let us suppose the players create a cycle and continue it forever. You do not want your "neither victory nor defeat" rule to apply here. You want your evaluation conditions to apply. However, as long as the move-sequence goes on and on, analysis is not ready yet for applying these conditions. We are in a hole: the process of rules application does not terminate. Thus I maintain that you need an extra ko rule (like "During Evaluate, a cycle with more than 2 plays always invokes case C."). The rules shall be clear also for others - not only for you, right?

Since you do not clarify "more than 2 [eyes]" or "eye", let me state that your rules cannot be understood and applied WRT "2-eyed". Since this is a core concept of your rules, they are inapplicable as a whole.

The double threat connection problem is of course not a problem for your rules. It is just a counter-example to your earlier claim that considering one versus more than one string could not lead to differences.

About the no-3-eye-formation-example: It is possible that your thinking differs. But what is it! Why don't you explain it? Just because you do not want to explain "more than 2 eyes" clearly?

Examples might help a bit, but please don't spend too much time with them to do me a favour. What I am really interested in is clear definitions. Then examples might even be superfluous.

You have not given any definition of "eye". You have used the word in phrases like "more than 2 eyes" but using it as if it were already known what "eye" is is the contrary of a definition: It is not stating any.

Once more: Try to apply your rules (the rules!) to the 360 stones example! Writing prose instead is not an application of your rules but is circumventing it. Everybody can talk informally about verbal Japanese style rules, but such is not what your rules are - they are a new written ruleset and require specific, related application.

A positional example for inconsistency in your ideas? So far I have mentioned inconsistency between your ideas and Japanese style rules. To judge inconsistency within only your rules (apart from some ko rule being valid only during some phase etc.), I would need to understand your "2-eyed". Until you define it clearly, I cannot really say much about how (in)consistent that is for itself.

While you call it Japanese style if there is just territory except in sekis, I see further requirements before something can be called Japanese style. E.g., Korean style would also meet your weak criteria. Therefore I would speak of Traditional Territory Scoring style. - When one studies Japanese style rules more closely, then one notices also things mentioned earlier: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcmod.html

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Sat May 29, 2010 3:16 am

RobertJasiek wrote:Your attempt to find a wording for a basic ko rule ("a player must not immediately recapture a stone, which just captured one of his stones") has a problem with its contents much more than its wording. Your text can be read as if prohibiting also snapback. If you do not want to discuss wording, then get the contents of your rules at least right so far that your wording does not imply wrong contents.

Actually, I think this is ok ... "a stone" is quite specific, and removes ambiguous possibilities of applying to a snapback. If one wanted to be more clearly specific, it would be easy to state "a single stone".

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sat May 29, 2010 3:30 am

The problem with just "a stone" is that it could be part of a larger string. Therefore, if one does not want to refer to positions, using "a single stone" has been good practice for basic ko rule texts.

Harleqin · Post by **Harleqin** » Sat May 29, 2010 4:28 am

Your result of Life and Death example No. 4 is not acceptable.

Black can take either one or the other white group, but only by letting the other live. He can choose which one to take, but he cannot choose to take both. That this miai situation is suddenly broken down, assigning both areas completely to Black and producing a swing of 24 points, is like a cheap accounting trick, where one credit suddenly appears in two locations.

Even the Nihon-Kiin 1989 rules produce an acceptable result here.

HermanHiddema · Post by **HermanHiddema** » Sat May 29, 2010 4:41 am

Harleqin wrote:Your result of Life and Death example No. 4 is not acceptable.

Black can take either one or the other white group, but only by letting the other live. He can choose which one to take, but he cannot choose to take both. That this miai situation is suddenly broken down, assigning both areas completely to Black and producing a swing of 24 points, is like a cheap accounting trick, where one credit suddenly appears in two locations.

Even the Nihon-Kiin 1989 rules produce an acceptable result here.

This result is a choice, in the same way that writing rules so that "bent four in the corner" always dies is a choice. In the case of bent four it may similarly be true that a group is captured without compensation, even though it would be impossible to do so during actual play (i.e. without special rules such as the J1989 "Pass for specific ko as the only valid threat" during evaluation).

You may not like it, but to call it "not acceptable" is too strong a phrase.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sat May 29, 2010 4:48 am

Dear Robert, here come the promised diagrams to explain some of my ideas to you.

For the sake of not interfering with anything you might have in mind when reading "eye", let us call points, which must not be taken by one player, because that move would leave a chain of him with no lifeline left, as "taboo".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ . . . . . $$ . O O O . $$ . O 1 O . $$ . O O O . $$ . . . . .[/go]

The move of 1 is not allowed for Black, ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ . . . . . $$ . O O O . $$ . O M O . $$ . O O O . $$ . . . . .[/go]

... so the marked point is a "taboo-point" of White's chain.

"Evaluate" is done for each chain of stones separately, starting with a move of the opponent (may be a Pass).

Status "2-eyed" has three sub-statuses:

(I) The chain already has at least 2 "taboo-points". Black must not play at each of them. So the chain cannot be taken off the board. Just to give a help where to look, these "taboo-points" lay "inside" the chain, "inside" not to be taken literally, as the second example shows.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |M W M W X . $$ |W W W W X . $$ |X X X X X . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |-------------------- $$ |M W M W . X . W X . $$ |W W W W W W W W X . $$ |X X X X X X X X X . $$ |. . . . . . . . . .[/go]

(II) The chain has not 2 "taboo-points" yet. Whatever Black tries, the chain will be transformed into sub-status (I).

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

White's chain has no "taboo-points" yet.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |---------------- $$ |M 3 O M 1 O X . $$ |O O O O O O X . $$ |X X X X X X X . $$ |. . . . . . . .[/go]

Now the chain has 2 "taboo-points".

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

White's marked chain has no "taboo-points" yet.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |-------------- $$ |M O M O X . . $$ |O O O O X X . $$ |. 2 1 . W X . $$ |W W W W W X . $$ |X X X X X X . $$ |. . . . . . .[/go]

Now the chain has 2 "taboo-points".

Chains of sub-status (II) cannot be taken off the board, too.

(III) The chain can be captured by the opponent. Thereafter, each of the primary points of this chain will be transformed into sub-status (I).

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

White's marked stone can be captured by Black.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |-------------- $$ |X X O . O . O $$ |X 1 O O O O O $$ |X W X . . . . $$ |O X X X X . . $$ |O O O O X . . $$ |. O . O X . . $$ |O O O O X . . $$ |. . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |-------------- $$ |X X O . O . O $$ |X X O O O O O $$ |X 2 X . . . . $$ |O X X X X . . $$ |O O O O X . . $$ |. O . O X . . $$ |O O O O X . . $$ |. . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |-------------- $$ |. . O . O . O $$ |. 3 O O O O O $$ |4 W X . . . . $$ |O X X X X . . $$ |O O O O X . . $$ |M O M O X . . $$ |O O O O X . . $$ |. . . . . . .[/go]

Now White's chain has 2 "taboo-points".

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

White's marked chain can be captured.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |W W 1 X O . $$ |X X X X O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |. O . O O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |2 3 X X O . $$ |X X X X O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |. O . O O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |4 X X X O . $$ |X X X X O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |. O . O O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |O 6 . . O . $$ |8 . . . O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |M O M O O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |W W . . O . $$ |O . . . O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |M O M O O . $$ |O O O O O . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

Each primary point now belongs to a chain with 2 "taboo-points".

Status "stable" has two sub-statuses:

(I) The chain does not have 2 "taboo-points", but will not be captured by the opponent.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |W W W W X . $$ |X 1 2 W X X $$ |X X X X O X $$ |O O O O O X $$ |. O . O . X $$ |O O O O . X $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

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

Black cannot capture White's chain.

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

White's marked chain ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |. X W 2 O X $$ |X . W 1 O X $$ |W W W W X X $$ |X X X X X . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

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

... will not get 2 "taboo-points", so it remains in status "stable".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |1 W W X . . $$ |X W W X X X $$ |O X X X . . $$ |O O O O . . $$ |. O . O . . $$ |O O O O . . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

White's marked chain can be captured by Black.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |X 4 . X . . $$ |X 2 3 X X X $$ |O X X X . . $$ |O O O O . . $$ |. O . O . . $$ |O O O O . . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |. O 5 X . . $$ |6 O X X X X $$ |O X X X . . $$ |O O O O . . $$ |. O . O . . $$ |O O O O . . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

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

Only 2 of the primary 4 points are part of a group with at least 2 "taboo-points". So the chain cannot get the status "2-eyed". But will be "stable".

Status "removable" contains, what cannot reach neither status "2-eyed" nor "stable":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |W W 1 X . . $$ |X X X X . . $$ |. X . X . . $$ |X X X X . . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

White's marked chain can be captured by Black, ...

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

... and none of its primary points will become part of a "2-eyed" White chain.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |------------ $$ |3 W X . X O $$ |O 1 X 2 X O $$ |X X X X O O $$ |O O O O O . $$ |. . . . . .[/go]

White's marked chain can be captured by Black ...

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

... and its primary point will not become part of a "2-eyed" White chain.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |-------------- $$ |. O X 2 X O . $$ |O O O X X O . $$ |1 O X . X O . $$ |W X X X X O . $$ |X X O O O O . $$ |O O O . . . . $$ |. . . . . . .[/go]

White's marked chain can be captured by Black ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |-------------- $$ |. O 5 O X O . $$ |O O O X X O . $$ |X O X . X O . $$ |4 X X X X O . $$ |X X O O O O . $$ |O O O . . . . $$ |. . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ |-------------- $$ |. O X 8 X O . $$ |O O O X X O . $$ |7 O X . X O . $$ |O X X X X O . $$ |X X O O O O . $$ |O O O . . . . $$ |. . . . . . .[/go]

... and its primary point will not become part of a "2-eyed" White chain.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sat May 29, 2010 5:00 am

HermanHiddema wrote:
Harleqin wrote:Your result of Life and Death example No. 4 is not acceptable.

Black can take either one or the other white group, but only by letting the other live. He can choose which one to take, but he cannot choose to take both. That this miai situation is suddenly broken down, assigning both areas completely to Black and producing a swing of 24 points, is like a cheap accounting trick, where one credit suddenly appears in two locations.

Even the Nihon-Kiin 1989 rules produce an acceptable result here.

This result is a choice, in the same way that writing rules so that "bent four in the corner" always dies is a choice. In the case of bent four it may similarly be true that a group is captured without compensation, even though it would be impossible to do so during actual play (i.e. without special rules such as the J1989 "Pass for specific ko as the only valid threat" during evaluation).

You may not like it, but to call it "not acceptable" is too strong a phrase.

As I stressed several times, it is important to have consistent rules.

It is not important, if one likes the result of the evaluation of a very special situation (which may never arise in actual games). The result must fit into the chorus of all the other ones, provided by the rule set.

The result for 1989 Nihon Kiin rules example 4 fits into what I mean with the "local" view. There are no effects across living groups. Undoutably Black's tree-stone chain in the corner is a living one, so the "local" principle applies. And gives a valid result.

As Bent-Four-in-the-Corner is concerned, there are even examples within the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules, which end with the Bent-Four living in Seki or living unconditionally. There is no special rule claiming "Bent-Four-in-the-Corner" is dead. The "death" of "Bent-Four" in the overwhelming majority of cases results from the Nihon Kiin evaluation procedure alone.

The Nihon Kiin's specific rule of explicitely passing a particular Ko before retaking it is - in my opinion - a somewhat miscarried written trial to secure the evaluation being local.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sat May 29, 2010 5:05 am

Herman, bent-4 does not need a pass for ko rule. An ordinary basic ko rule during the analysis suffices!

Life In 19x19

Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules

Re: Ideas for Japanese-style rules