Life and death dispute under Japanese 1989 rules

Pio2001 · **#21**

Cassandra wrote:

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 · **#22**

Pio2001 wrote:

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 · **#23**

John Fairbairn wrote:

Quote:

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 · **#24**

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 · **#25**

Pio2001 wrote:

Vesa wrote:

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 :scratch:

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

Cheers,
Vesa

Bill Spight · **#26**

Pio2001 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

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 :

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. :b1:

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 :b1:

dead (but not removed :shock:

), but all of the other Black stones adjacent to "a" are in seki, so Black does not get any territory that they might surround. :lol:

Life and death dispute under Japanese 1989 rules

Who is online