About Go Rules in Korea

[RobertJasiek]

That's because they use uranium and plutonium in their rules. The "uranium" is the difficult to grasp, but already explained by foreigners stuff (such as definition of life and locally). The "plutonium" is the even more difficult to grasp, not yet explained stuff (such as "ko threat", where a trivial "play in between ko captures" would not be good enough explanation).

[jts]

I hope once this problem is cleared up the Koreans can reach the level of German go.

[HermanHiddema]

It almost feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. I get that there might be a way to misread Robert's comment in a way that's obnoxious, but it didn't even momentarily occur to me (in spite of Robert's tendency to make claims I find grandiose), and I don't think it's the most ordinary reading.

Yes, I am being deliberately obtuse, because experience teaches that it is not a good idea to just assume Robert means anything else than a strict literal reading of what he writes. So I just assume nothing and ask for clarification.

Anyway, in my opinion it is good to clear up what Robert meant, because his comment already caused offense to at least one Korean player.

[RobertJasiek]

Concerning the mentioned many millions of Korean players, I wonder whether they all or least a few of them cry and complain about apparently the professionals' 20 kyu mistake to let the Korean rules contradict basic go theory and identify nakade stones as dead, because they are removable.

$$B dead stones due to current Korean rules
$$ -------------------
$$ | . O . O . O . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . .
$$ | B B B B . O . . .
$$ | W W . B . O . . .
$$ | W W B B . O . . .
$$ | B B B . . O . . .
$$ | . . . . . O . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B dead stones due to current Korean rules
$$ -------------------
$$ | . O . O . O . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . .
$$ | B B B B . O . . .
$$ | W W . B . O . . .
$$ | W W B B . O . . .
$$ | B B B . . O . . .
$$ | . . . . . O . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

[MJK]

Concerning the mentioned many millions of Korean players, I wonder whether they all or least a few of them cry and complain about apparently the professionals' 20 kyu mistake to let the Korean rules contradict basic go theory and identify nakade stones as dead, because they are removable.

$$B dead stones due to current Korean rules
$$ -------------------
$$ | . O . O . O . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . .
$$ | B B B B . O . . .
$$ | W W . B . O . . .
$$ | W W B B . O . . .
$$ | B B B . . O . . .
$$ | . . . . . O . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B dead stones due to current Korean rules
$$ -------------------
$$ | . O . O . O . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . .
$$ | B B B B . O . . .
$$ | W W . B . O . . .
$$ | W W B B . O . . .
$$ | B B B . . O . . .
$$ | . . . . . O . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

What the problem with the quoted diagram?
Simply black is dead; any pro must agree.
I don't know if the current Korean rules say the white stones are also dead. However, it doesn't matter at all to the result, I mean the scoring.

[RobertJasiek]

The rules imply that also the marked white stones are dead (and this is the mistake).

WRT to scoring, usually a generous interpretation of the rules' territory "definition" can dissolve this problem ("feature instead of bug"). Matters change (and a "feature instead of bug" excuse breaks down) when snapback stones form part of an informally perceived territory boundary, are called dead (because also they are removable), and then - according to application of the rules - there is no proper surrounding by independent live stones. This does matter for scoring, although we can generously set the lower level of that mistake at 10 kyu, because DDKs do not necessarily know what a snapback is:)

Nevertheless, no ruleset should take pride in temporarily calling the white nakade stones "dead". Such is not professional teaching standard, isn't it?

[hyperpape]

It almost feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. I get that there might be a way to misread Robert's comment in a way that's obnoxious, but it didn't even momentarily occur to me (in spite of Robert's tendency to make claims I find grandiose), and I don't think it's the most ordinary reading.

Yes, I am being deliberately obtuse, because experience teaches that it is not a good idea to just assume Robert means anything else than a strict literal reading of what he writes. So I just assume nothing and ask for clarification.

Anyway, in my opinion it is good to clear up what Robert meant, because his comment already caused offense to at least one Korean player.

I suppose I get what you're doing, but it seemed needlessly confrontational.

[Cassandra]

The rules imply that also the marked white stones are dead (and this is the mistake).

From which part of the rules text do you derive this from ?

I just found a similar diagram to your's with the White Nakade shape inside. But the corresponding text seems to say that the Black stones are dead. There, noting is said about White stones.

[RobertJasiek]

From which part of the rules text do you derive this from ?

See the first message of this thread.

I just found a similar diagram to your's with the White Nakade shape inside. But the corresponding text seems to say that the Black stones are dead. There, noting is said about White stones.

Is the diagram for the Korean 1992 Rules (where this aspect was correct, if implied from the related capturable-1 diagrams) instead of for the current Korean rules? Is the text appropriate by saying nothing about white stones?

[cyclops]

However, it doesn't matter at all to the result, I mean the scoring.

He is right, isn't he, Robert?

[RobertJasiek]

However, it doesn't matter at all to the result, I mean the scoring.

He is right, isn't he, Robert?

1) Yes - if by scoring you refer only to the score and not also to the status assessments, and if the nakade problem does not coincide with a related snapback problem.

2) No - if you refer to the snapback problem.

3) No - if you refer to the nakade problem or the snapback problem.

4) Possibly no - for other of the many mistakes in the rules.