1001 GoGoD Games for your Coffee Break #62 (1 Apr 2013)

John Fairbairn · #1

Many unnecessarily rude things have been said in the west about Japanese rules and the people who framed them. One glaring aspect of this has been ignorance of what went on in Japan, and the assumption that there was just one monolithic opinion there. The present game - still scratching the surface - will show that there were in fact many strands.

This was a game for the Kokumin Shinbun newspaper in 1941. It was at a time when the Nihon Ki-in was slowly coming to a consensus on codifying rules for the first time, in the wake of the famous Mannen-ko incident more than a decade before. This game, less significant as regards rules and more as regards etiquette, perhaps, did at least inform the process and showed that even pros had conflicting views - or were complacent, or were ignorant, or whatever. Make your own mind up.

After move 250, Ito declared the game was over. She probably expected Takeda to acquiesce, not least because he was younger and of lower grade. But Takeda was on something of a roll at the time and didn't want to lose his winning streak. He also thought the game wasn't finished, and said so. That put Ito in a spot, but she stuck to her guns and passed.

It would appear that Takeda was right, and a huge trade took place during the subsequent play. It involved almost half the board, and garnered Takeda 8 extra points. But that still wasn't enough for victory, which perhaps meant that this game did not attract the same attention it might have done had the result been reversed (or if it had been in the Oteai). Nevertheless, the Kokumin go reporter Toba Tosui (pen name of Fukuya Tatsumaru) did submit the game to the Nihon Ki-in Rules Committee, where Shinohara Masami certainly did give it his attention.

When the rules finally were adumbrated in 1949, it was obvious that they were not meant to be an exercise in mathematical rigour. Rather they were designed to give a little to each of the many different strands of opinion that existed - two of which we see here.

Of course the game is also a tough but interesting exercise in calculating the final score at move 250 for those of you who study go with a cilice.

Oh, and let us not overlook that the woman won. There were quite a few strong female players at the time - in relative terms, possibly rather more than today. You might know Ito Kiyoko better by her later name of Ito Tomoe.

SmoothOper · #2

John Fairbairn wrote:

Many unnecessarily rude things have been said in the west about Japanese rules and the people who framed them.

Of course from the Japanese perspective the West would include China and just about every other nation, and China if anyone has a right to have a legitimate gripe with the spread of Japanese rules as a lingua franca.

John Fairbairn · #3

Quote:

Of course from the Japanese perspective the West would include China and just about every other nation, and China if anyone has a right to have a legitimate gripe with the spread of Japanese rules as a lingua franca.

This is ill informed on several counts:

1. The Japanese word for the west does not include China or Korea

2. The Chinese adopted Japanese rules in that they dispensed, directly through contact with the Japanese, with the four starting stones, komi, etc.

3. The Chinese are not the type to gripe about go rules. They happily play events on mainland China under Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese (Ing) rules, depending on who the sponsor is.

They do, however, like to be smug and point out that Japanese rules (the starting stones and komi excepted) are really Chinese (Tang) rules.

That said, can we possibly avoid turning this into a rules slugfest. If you think I cast the first stone, I'm sorry, but I thought it was important to set the context and stress that I was providing a corrective. As you will see, I have not expressed my own view on which rule-set is best. I am on public record as having provided translations or data for Japanese, Chinese, Ing, AGA, Korean, sunjang and Tang rules. I let others decide. But not here, please.

SmoothOper · #4

John Fairbairn wrote:

Quote:

Of course from the Japanese perspective the West would include China and just about every other nation, and China if anyone has a right to have a legitimate gripe with the spread of Japanese rules as a lingua franca.

This is ill informed on several counts:

1. The Japanese word for the west does not include China or Korea

2. The Chinese adopted Japanese rules in that they dispensed, directly through contact with the Japanese, with the four starting stones, komi, etc.

3. The Chinese are not the type to gripe about go rules. They happily play events on mainland China under Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese (Ing) rules, depending on who the sponsor is.

They do, however, like to be smug and point out that Japanese rules (the starting stones and komi excepted) are really Chinese (Tang) rules.

That said, can we possibly avoid turning this into a rules slugfest. If you think I cast the first stone, I'm sorry, but I thought it was important to set the context and stress that I was providing a corrective. As you will see, I have not expressed my own view on which rule-set is best. I am on public record as having provided translations or data for Japanese, Chinese, Ing, AGA, Korean, sunjang and Tang rules. I let others decide. But not here, please.

I just don't think you get the historical relationship between China, Japan, and the US and the rest of the west. The US and China are friends because it has been a historical mutual benefit, and Chinese while having deep internal political(Arguably started by the British) problems which prevent great relationships with the "external world", they generally consider US influence positively when looking at South Korea(US), Taiwan(US), Hong Kong(UK), and even Japan(US) not to mention as a trading partner, furthermore the US helped China with an aggressive enemy, Japan. Japan is the US friend because the snot was whipped out of them in an ugly war, a war which they started and were primary aggressors. The reason the Japanese rules were adopted in the west, is because during occupation the US became familiar with them, this is why I don't regard the Japanese rules especially highly when they were developed in 1944, yes we play Japanese rules, but because Japanese were aggressive losers.

oren · #5

So much to say, but I'll just have to leave it with...

http://xkcd.com/386/

palapiku · #6

dude... did you seriously just give John Fairbairn a lesson in Asian history

Dusk Eagle · #7

imabuddha · #8

SmoothOper wrote:

I just don't think you get the historical relationship between China, Japan, and the US and the rest of the west.

Mage · #9

palapiku wrote:

dude... did you seriously just give John Fairbairn a lesson in Asian history

\facepalm

lindentree · **#10**

SmoothOper wrote:

I just don't think you get the historical relationship between China, Japan, and the US and the rest of the west. The US and China are friends because it has been a historical mutual benefit, and Chinese while having deep internal political(Arguably started by the British) problems which prevent great relationships with the "external world", they generally consider US influence positively when looking at South Korea(US), Taiwan(US), Hong Kong(UK), and even Japan(US) not to mention as a trading partner, furthermore the US helped China with an aggressive enemy, Japan. Japan is the US friend because the snot was whipped out of them in an ugly war, a war which they started and were primary aggressors. The reason the Japanese rules were adopted in the west, is because during occupation the US became familiar with them, this is why I don't regard the Japanese rules especially highly when they were developed in 1944, yes we play Japanese rules, but because Japanese were aggressive losers.

OK, you HAVE to be trolling us. China, or at least the Communist regime, has been in conflict with the US over various issues ever since our initial support of Taiwan as a separate nation-state and the Korean War. Hell, US forces participated in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion. (Sorry, I know I shouldn't feed him, but I majored in Chinese history as an undergrad.)

SmoothOper · **#11**

lindentree wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

I just don't think you get the historical relationship between China, Japan, and the US and the rest of the west. The US and China are friends because it has been a historical mutual benefit, and Chinese while having deep internal political(Arguably started by the British) problems which prevent great relationships with the "external world", they generally consider US influence positively when looking at South Korea(US), Taiwan(US), Hong Kong(UK), and even Japan(US) not to mention as a trading partner, furthermore the US helped China with an aggressive enemy, Japan. Japan is the US friend because the snot was whipped out of them in an ugly war, a war which they started and were primary aggressors. The reason the Japanese rules were adopted in the west, is because during occupation the US became familiar with them, this is why I don't regard the Japanese rules especially highly when they were developed in 1944, yes we play Japanese rules, but because Japanese were aggressive losers.

OK, you HAVE to be trolling us. China, or at least the Communist regime, has been in conflict with the US over various issues ever since our initial support of Taiwan as a separate nation-state and the Korean War. Hell, US forces participated in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion. (Sorry, I know I shouldn't feed him, but I majored in Chinese history as an undergrad.)

You study Chinese history and you don't think they are our friends compared to Japan? You must have drunk the capitalist/nationalist cool-aid. Why do you think they keep investing in the US? I know they give us money, because they are our enemies.

Joaz Banbeck · **#12**

[admin]

Gentlemen,

Please remember that the TOS has a clause that forbids political discussions.
( We tend to overlook this one a lot because the politics of certain Asian nations affects go worldwide, but this thread is becoming an example of why we have it. )

Thanks,
JB

[/admin]

Joaz Banbeck · **#13**

John Fairbairn wrote:

... Japanese rules ... and the assumption that there was just one monolithic opinion there. The present game - still scratching the surface - will show that there were in fact many strands.

... This game... showed that even pros had conflicting views - or were complacent, or were ignorant, or whatever...

After move 250, Ito declared the game was over. She probably expected Takeda to acquiesce, not least because he was younger and of lower grade. But Takeda was on something of a roll at the time and didn't want to lose his winning streak. He also thought the game wasn't finished, and said so. That put Ito in a spot, but she stuck to her guns and passed.

It would appear that Takeda was right, and a huge trade took place during the subsequent play. It involved almost half the board, and garnered Takeda 8 extra points. But that still wasn't enough for victory...

It seems that there could be a completely different interpretation of what happened. It may have not been about rules at all. Ito may have read the whole sequence and concluded that she won regardless. This could have been a disagreement about counting, rather than about rules.

Did Ito specificly claim that Takedo misunderstood the rules? Or did she simply say that at move 250 the final result was indisputable?

tundra · **#14**

Bill Spight · **#15**

Well, gang, I thought that I was quoting this post when I was editing it, and I have lost the original.

Here is the gist.

I do not think that this was a rules question for the players as much as a reading question. Ito thought that the game was over at move 250. She was wrong. Takeda saw a chance, but that does not necessarily mean that he had read the ko fight out.

Ito passed. My attempted edit was to say that I think it was a matter of honor. She could have made a protective play which would have effectively killed the Black group on the right side. The resulting ko is a three move approach ko, which the approacher hardly ever wins. (There is a proverb about that: A three move approach ko is no ko.) But that would have been using the information gained from Ikeda's refusal to agree to end the game, not relying solely upon her own efforts.

I am including an SGF file with a variation where Ito makes the protective play.

Edit: Corrected an error in my variation.

Edit: SGF edited to show what happens if White ignores Black's first ko threat. White's error was found by mithra (#22).

Bill Spight · **#16**

tundra wrote:

Sorry to be dense, but could you please clarify exactly which rule was in dispute here? Maybe my view is too modern, but I would think that as long as a player still has legal moves available, and his or her time has not run out, then he or she is free to continue playing. I don't see how one player can unilaterally declare the game to be over. Or is it that, under traditional rules, if the higher ranked player said the game was over, then play must stop? Or is it that when play continued, Ito should have had an opportunity for a board move, rather than losing a move through passing? Thanks for any clarification.

At that time there were no written rules, although I think that there were some Nihon Kiin Bylaws that covered some rules questions. The game ended by agreement. As it did when I learned to play. Ending play by consecutive passes is new. Ito could not unilaterally declare the game over. And indeed, she did not. Takeda continued to play. By indicating that she thought that the game was over, Ito did not relinquish her right to play. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?TenThousandYearKo%2FRulesCrisis for the earlier case where Segoe suggested that the game was over, and when Takahashi did not agree, Segoe played a stone. Ito could have, as well. There was even a dame she could have filled. She stuck by her guns.

tundra · **#17**

Bill Spight · **#18**

tundra wrote:

Thanks, Bill. But I am still puzzled... Ito and Takeda did not reach agreement after move 250, so play continued. What is so unusual about this, that the game should be submitted "...to the Nihon Ki-in Rules Committee, where Shinohara Masami certainly did give it his attention"? (Quoting John Fairbairn, in the first post.)

First, it is unusual. Even as an amateur, I do not remember a time when an offer to end the game was refused. (Except once in a teaching game when, as Black, I had something that I wanted to try out.)

I can think of a couple of reasons why it might have been referred to the rules committee. The question of what to do when the players do not agree to end the game had not been decided by the ruling in the Segoe-Takahashi dispute. The ruling was obviously political in nature. Also, there was an open question of what to do with unresolved kos. Go Seigen was involved in two unresolved ko situations later in the century. In this game Takeda proved that Ito needed to make a protective play. But was that all? This game was obviously grist for the mill, like the rules beasts of today.

tundra · **#19**

Bill Spight · **#20**

tundra wrote:

Okay, but in case I'm overlooking something, are there any unresolved kos in this game, when black has played move 249? White filled in a ko at move 248, and of course a ko fight develops after move 250. But when Ito proposed the end of game at move 250, I don't think there were any unresolved kos on the board. Am I missing something?

Well, she did not think so, but there was. Had the game ended at move 250 under today's rules, both players might have lost. (I do not know of any instance where that has happened, but the rules contemplate it.) Remember, with no written rules, anything funny about the end of the game needed to be considered.

1001 GoGoD Games for your Coffee Break #62 (1 Apr 2013)

Who is online