Life and death dispute under Japanese 1989 rules

[Pio2001]

Please see Article 7 and Commentary on Article 7, Life and death, Clause 2.

Article 7, Yes, and ?

Commentary on article 7 clause 2 is about snapback. There is no snapback here

Go has managed for millennia to go without formal written rules, and people managed to enjoy their games quite fine. And, as you say, many countries have not formalized their rules and they also manage just fine. If anything, in my experience, people who know the formal rules well are more likely to have disputes and disrupt tournaments than those who do not.

The higher the stakes, the more necessary are formal rules. After the "rule crisis" of 1928, the Japanese realized that it was not possible to go on without a clear formal rule.
Two times again in the 20th century, there was a dispute about rules during a top match. This is not serious ! I mean, they are supposed to be the best players in the world, and they don't even know the rules of the game they're playing ?? There is something seriously wrong here.

Besides, a complete and clear set of rules is necessary for softwares. A software can't play go without human assistance if the rules are not completely defined.
It is quite interesting that AlphaGo plays under chinese rule only.

Last, it is easier for beginners if the rules of play are written somewhere. A friend of mine learned go some time ago. He got the best book for beginners in french (Le Langage des Pierres, by Motoki Noguchi), but complained that "the rules of play were not written anywhere in the book" !

[tiger314]

Article 7, Yes, and ?

Commentary on article 7 clause 2 is about snapback. There is no snapback here

You are at a different place, go to the next page and read the text around diagram 9.

[Cassandra]

It is quite interesting that AlphaGo plays under chinese rule only.

This is not true.

All the 60 recorded Master games have 6.5 komi, typical for Japanese / Korean rules.

AlphaGo's games with LeeSedol had 7.5 komi, typical for Chinese rules.

[John Fairbairn]

The higher the stakes, the more necessary are formal rules. After the "rule crisis" of 1928, the Japanese realized that it was not possible to go on without a clear formal rule.

Yet somehow or other they managed to play on for 21 years till 1949 before codifying some rules! It wasn't a crisis. It was seen as an interesting incident which stimulated discussion by amateurs about rules, while participant Segoe, who disliked Shusai, probably kept the pot boiling as a way of niggling Shusai (his opponent was Shusai's son-in-law). A much bigger issue at the time was the length of games in the Oteai which was seen as having a detrimental effect on players' health - and (unlike the minor rules quibble) was acted on immediately.

Two times again in the 20th century, there was a dispute about rules during a top match. This is not serious ! I mean, they are supposed to be the best players in the world, and they don't even know the rules of the game they're playing ?? There is something seriously wrong here.

More than two actually (with Segoe or his pupils involved in several of them). But this is common in sport. Just a fortnight ago we had England players nonplussed in the England-Italy rugby game when Italy exploited an interpretation of the offside rule. It's also a major element in many pro baseball games. And again, in all these cases, the sky never seems to fall in.

Besides, a complete and clear set of rules is necessary for softwares. A software can't play go without human assistance if the rules are not completely defined.

It's probably desirable but hardly essential given the very low incidence of problems. KGS manages to score games fine. Beginners may have the odd glitch, but do we expect grown-ups to put trainer wheels on their bikes just because kids need them?

Last, it is easier for beginners if the rules of play are written somewhere. A friend of mine learned go some time ago. He got the best book for beginners in french (Le Langage des Pierres, by Motoki Noguchi), but complained that "the rules of play were not written anywhere in the book" !

Only for a certain kind of beginner. Most get by without, and I dare say many would be confused or put off by being given formal rules. After all, how many people read the instruction booklets when they buy a new gadget? Apple have even made a business out of hiding the instructions.

[Pio2001]

You are at a different place, go to the next page and read the text around diagram 9.

In diagram 9, both groups are dead because no ko was taken the move before. In my diagram, Black took the ko just before the game stopped. The rules tell nothing about such a case.

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, what prevents us to apply article 6 ?

[Pio2001]

All the 60 recorded Master games have 6.5 komi, typical for Japanese / Korean rules.

Yes, but with human assistance. Someone has to click on dead groups at the end of the game. To my knowledge, there is no software that can justify by itself the status of its groups if the opponent has an objection.

[Cassandra]

Yes, but with human assistance. Someone has to click on dead groups at the end of the game. To my knowledge, there is no software that can justify by itself the status of its groups if the opponent has an objection.

As far as I know, there is no program that has a thourough understanding of what is "locality". This is equivalent to a thourough understanding of which parts of the board are independent of each other (far range weapons not considered).

In my opinion this is by far a more interesting issue that should be solved (in order to avoid a lot of cirumvention measures) to further enhance a Go playing program.

For your desire, another software should be invented, being a specialist in interpreting rules. However, I would like to assume that there is absolutely no market for such a tool.

[Bill Spight]

While the general approach should be that the players can take care of themselves, they are not required to be rules lawyers.

Much more important, I think, is that the players are not required to be interested in mathematics. Rules study as usually discussed here is a branch of maths. . . .

All that is really required, rather than a handbook of minutiae, is a meta-rule - which may simply be an announcement before a tournament - that go for amateurs is just a game. In the event of any disputes the director will do his best but is only human and so any decision by him may be imperfect but will be final. If you don't like that meta-rule, go away and organise your own tournaments.

The handbook is for the director, not the players.

[RobertJasiek]

A silent pass-pass game on the empty board is decided by the komi or, in a 1 handicap Japanese style 0 komi game, by White's win. Unsportsmanlike behaviour, such as insulting the opponent with "I do not want to play you because you are weak!" can override this. Accordingly, at least 2 or 3 tournament rules, which might be verbal rules, are involved.

[Vesa]

Please see Article 7 and Commentary on Article 7, Life and death, Clause 2.

Article 7, Yes, and ?

Commentary on article 7 clause 2 is about snapback. There is no snapback here

Sorry, should have included the reference link. See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Japanese.html.

Cheers,
Vesa

[Bill Spight]

From what you say it seems apparent that there are tournament directors or referees who do not understand the Japanese 1989 rules. That should not happen.

That is not surprising. Consider the following diagram :

$$Bc 2 Pass, 3 Pass. Is there a point of territory in a ?
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . O 1 a X . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc 2 Pass, 3 Pass. Is there a point of territory in a ?
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . O 1 a X . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . . .[/go]

There are no ko threat left anywhere. Black takes the ko with 1. White passes. Black passes.

Is the intersection "a" a point of territory ? We all know that it is not. But if we strictly follow the text of the rule (at least its available english translation), it is !

Nowhere is it stated that the prohibition of recapturing in a ko is lifted when the game stops. Therefore White can't capture the stone, even if she play first. Since all black stones are alive, "a" is an eyespace, and since there are no dame left, this eyespace is a territory.

No, it isn't. is dead. Since it is dead, "a" is not territory.

Edit: This is an area where the rules text may be unclear. If play were to resume, the ko ban would still be in effect. But life and death when play is stopped are not determined by actual play. Hypothetical play to determine life and death starts without any ko ban. I do not believe that this is actually stated in the rules or commentary, but it is understood. For one thing, in all of the examples in the commentary with an unresolved ko, life and death are determined without any mention of an initial ko ban. If the ko ban mattered, then the commentary should include examples with an initial ko ban. For another thing, counting "a" as territory or not was a question before the Japanese 1949 rules were formulated, and they were formulated so that "a" would not become territory. They required filling at "a". The 1989 rules do not require "a" to be filled, but they still do not count "a" as territory.

BTW, if Black does not fill at "a" it becomes a dame, which means that not only is dead (but not removed ), but all of the other Black stones adjacent to "a" are in seki, so Black does not get any territory that they might surround.