Yesterday's rule dispute in Korea

[Kirby]

That is one reason I recommend Button Go for international competition, and also for the AGA, which already uses pass stones.

Come to the US Go Congress this year to advertise button go. As an added benefit, we can hang out

[jaeup]

The Korean 2016 Rules are also available as an HTML page:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/k2016.html

I think it looks even better than the original Korean text. (The diagram was quite horrible in the original version.)

[jaeup]

Reply to a few earlier posts:

The first change to go to the button go is the adoption of the pass stone in the existing area scoring rule. (I think this is a more realistic scenario than keeping the area scoring style.) AGA already did that and.. the real question is will the Chinese rule ever do so.

Now, some people say "players do not want change", but really? I bet Korean/Japanese players who are used to the territory scoring but forced to play under the Chinese rule will absolutely welcome this change. Yes, pass stone is a little bit weird, but they already know from their experience that it is the right way to think when area scoring is in effect.

Most of all, the ability to count territory at the end of the game by themselves is really a lovely change. Now, at the end of the game, they wait for the referee to come and do the counting. It is the most uninteresting moment of the game, because they all know the result anyway.

Will Chinese player hate this change? Well, maybe some will. But I think they can accept it for the following two reasons.

1) This change does not have anything to do with the game result.

2) They are already counting the territory during the game. So why hate doing so at the end of the game?

I know some people say they prefer area scoring. As a technical scoring method, maybe. But is there a single player who actually count area after playing like.. 200 moves into the game? "Hmm.. looks like I have 188 points and my opponent has 173 points. I am now ahead by ..." No! They all count territory! "I have 82 points and my opponent has 78. After komi, I'm behind by ..." Area scoring occasionally changes the score, but they consider such changes as a side dish. "In this special seki shape, I can earn 2 more points. So, after counting territory normally, add 2 points to mine." This is what they actually do. They do not count the whole area just because it may be slight different from the territory counting.

The second change is the adoption of the rule that "the opponent of the first passer makes the lass pass." If they already accepted the pass stone, I don't think it is such an enormous barrier. (Of course Korean/Japanese players will welcome it, and the Chinese player's reaction is the only issue.)

[Bill Spight]

In some cases the area and territory scoring are fundamentally different. See the first diagram at http://www.harryfearnley.com/go/bestiar ... ivola.html. With territory scoring the position is seki, but with area scoring once the dame have been filled, white can start filling a big eye with no extra cost, and force balck to select which white group to capture.this leaves the other white group alive with two eyes and the adjanced black group dead.

With apologies to the late John Rickard, it is a matter of the rules. Yes, this is a standoff, and the J89 rules permit Black to pass without cost while White fills the big eye. However, as I believe Honinbo Shuwa understood, the standoff "should" be resolved when plays cost 1 point, as with capturing dead stones, when you don't let the opponent pass for free. In that case White plays first and Black replies on the board. The result is 9 pts. for White after Black makes the last play. No Pass Go with Prisoner Return indicates the same value, and it uses territory scoring.

[Bill Spight]

Of course Korean/Japanese players will welcome it, and the Chinese player's reaction is the only issue.

The World Mind Sports Games rules are interesting. They implement a button (without calling it that) worth ½ pt. to White and use a 6½ pt. komi. They also use the Ing fill in method for counting the score, but can also use other methods.

[Pio2001]

The first change to go to the button go is the adoption of the pass stone in the existing area scoring rule. (I think this is a more realistic scenario than keeping the area scoring style.) AGA already did that and.. the real question is will the Chinese rule ever do so.[...]

The second change is the adoption of the rule that "the opponent of the second passer makes the lass pass." If they already accepted the pass stone, I don't think it is such an enormous barrier. (Of course Korean/Japanese players will welcome it, and the Chinese player's reaction is the only issue.)

Hello,
Are you talking about the adaptation of the AGA rule (with pass stones and White to make the last move) to include the button ? Then as far as I understand, Bill Spight posted the necessary modifications in page 3 of this topic.

Here are the main highlights :

• Black gives White a komi (compensation) of 6½ points [instead of 7.5]
• A special move called "taking the button," which occurs only once per game. [the button is worth nothing if we use pass stones]
• To take the button the player hands a stone over to his or her opponent as a prisoner. [but taking the button is not considered as a pass]
• After the button has been taken, it is only illegal to recreate a previous full board position with the same player to move if that position arose after the button was taken or by taking the button.
• Two consecutive passes normally signal the end of the game. The player to make the second pass does not hand over a stone if he or she also took the button.
• If the players disagree about the status of a group of stones left on the board after both have passed, play is resumed, with the opponent of the last player to pass having the move. The game is over when the players agree on the status of all groups on the board,in which case, if it is the turn of the last player to pass before resumption, that player passes and hands over a pass stone, or, failing such agreement, if both players pass twice in succession, in which case the second player to pass does not hand over a pass stone if that player played first in the resumption.

And you must add on top of all this that if some players loose their prisoners, or forget to hand over pass stones, when you have to count the game under area scoring, you must use a different komi (7 instead of 6.5), and a different value for the button (0.5 instead of 0) to re-count the same game !

I don't want to be the referee !

[Bill Spight]

[quote="Bill Spight]If the players disagree about the status of a group of stones left on the board after both have passed, play is resumed, with the opponent of the last player to pass having the move. The game is over when the players agree on the status of all groups on the board,in which case, if it is the turn of the last player to pass before resumption, that player passes and hands over a pass stone, or, failing such agreement, if both players pass twice in succession, in which case the second player to pass does not hand over a pass stone if that player played first in the resumption.

[/quote][/quote]
That rewrite is (I hope!) a clarification of the AGA rules about resumption and has nothing to do with Button Go per se. As written, this AGA rule could lead to some strange results, it seems to me.

[Pio2001]

I think that the main thing that will meet player's opposition is the fact that the button is supposed to be worth 0.5 points, but when you count the game filling territory with the prisoners, the button is actually worth zero ! It is only here to trigger a different rule about who's passing last.

I can't imagine players accepting that.

[Pio2001]

That rewrite is (I hope!) a clarification of the AGA rules about resumption and has nothing to do with Button Go per se. As written, this AGA rule could lead to some strange results, it seems to me.

Whoa ! I have just read again the official texts of the AGA rule, the British rule and the French rule (that are both supposed to be variations of the AGA rule). And I now see large difference between their formulations.

I had never realized that the AGA and British rules demand that the status of all string are agreed before the last pass. This is not so in the French rule.
And I had never realized that they use concepts such as life and death. The French rule does not.
On the other hand, the French rule forgets to tell that the dead stones must be removed if pass stones are used to count the game !
And it also escaped to me that the French rule uses a special definition of territory.

In my opinion, the core of the rule is better in the french version. It is more or less the same as the chinese rule. The score is directly defined with the concept of area, without any reference to life or death, not even talking about removing dead stones. This allows the rule to remain clear and short.
Then, the use of pass stones, and filling territories with prisoners, is added only at the end, as an option... except that they forgot to reintroduce the part about removing dead stones there !

The part about game resumption is also unclear in the French rule. They tell nothing about what must be done.
Anyway, I think that instead of describing a list of possibilities about who passes last and who gives a pass stone, the rule should remain as short as possible :

A player may pass by handing the opponent one stone (called a pass stone) instead of playing a stone on the board. A pass is always legal. Pass stones are added to the opponent's prisoners. White must make the last move.

And there is nothing more to say. All the previous examples of who must give a stone or not are just practical applications of the above rule.

[RobertJasiek]

jaeup, I have described the theory for positional judgement and for endgame evaluation why, during the middle game and early to middle endgame, territory counting can be used and might be faster. However, during the late endgame under area scoring, area counting is appropriate for correct endgame evaluation, except that some theory might still allow territory counting in certain local positions or for the global stone count or result parity prediction.

Due to the equivalence in counting, popularity in analysis does not provide a justification for scoring. For some purposes of analysis, one counts stones but you would not use this as justification for stone scoring, either.

[jaeup]

Hello,
Are you talking about the adaptation of the AGA rule (with pass stones and White to make the last move) to include the button ? Then as far as I understand, Bill Spight posted the necessary modifications in page 3 of this topic.

And you must add on top of all this that if some players loose their prisoners, or forget to hand over pass stones, when you have to count the game under area scoring, you must use a different komi (7 instead of 6.5), and a different value for the button (0.5 instead of 0) to re-count the same game !

I don't want to be the referee !

Well, all my suggestion is to replace the AGA territory scoring rule from
"White makes the last pass" to "The opponent of the first passer makes the last pass". It is easy to remember, and I don't think it is such a hard thing to swallow.

Though I keep saying that I am a fan of button go, I am not a fan of the physical button. It will make the players scary as you guess. The above instruction? Players will chuckle and follow, whether you understood its true meaning or not.

I believe any other complicated texts are related to the removal of known anomalies which existed before the adoption of the button go. That is a whole new issue independent of the button go itself.

About losing prisoners or forgetting the pass stone, again, the problem exists in the current AGA territory scoring rule, and I don't think people really complain about it. (Anyway, most of them have experience of the traditional territory scoring rules, and they know the value of prisoners in those rules. So, when they here "keep the prisoners in this rule", they simply do so.)

While I stay in Britain, they changed the rule to adopt the pass stone. (The previous one was practically the Japanese rule.) I was at the first tournament where the new rule is applied. I knew the rule issues so I just followed it without question. The other people? I don't think they were all rule theoreticians, but they also followed the instruction silently. If the tournament organizer said that instead of "White must make the last pass", "The opponent of the first passer must make the last pass", I don't think there would have been any more grumblings. (Anyway, not surprisingly, most game finished with two successive passes.)

[jaeup]

A player may pass by handing the opponent one stone (called a pass stone) instead of playing a stone on the board. A pass is always legal. Pass stones are added to the opponent's prisoners. White must make the last move.

How does this sound? I don't think it is so horrible.

A player may pass by handing the opponent one stone (called a pass stone) instead of playing a stone on the board. A pass is always legal. Pass stones are added to the opponent's prisoners. The opponent of the player who first passed must make the last move.

[jaeup]

However, during the late endgame under area scoring, area counting is appropriate for correct endgame evaluation

Players must make a move within 30 sec or 1 min during major tournaments. They never count area to see if they have 185 points. (When trying "holding half-point ko" strategy, they just add the point they can earn from it. They don't suddenly start counting every stone on board.) I count the area only when I make an "analysis" for book, and.. that's it. Isn't it same for everybody? (Even for my book, I mostly use territory scoring with pass stone. I occasionally used area scoring to check I didn't make a mistake.)

Due to the equivalence in counting, popularity in analysis does not provide a justification for scoring.

Well, one may think "area scoring is real" and "AGA territory scoring is just mimicking it". But what about the opposite? One who learned AGA territory scoring from one's first day as a Go player may understand things this way:
1. Two player alternatively play. Both must make equal number of plays. (Sounds fine. Right?)
2. One should count the territory. (Area? That looks awkward.)
3. A pass always costs one point. (So give one pass stone.)

To the player, Go is truly a game counting only territory. And then, when hearing that the area scoring is equivalent to the AGA territory scoring, the person will say "Well.. that is just a rule theoretician's proof, and that doesn't mean anything to me. Equivalence in analysis does not provide a justification for scoring." (Well, the area scoring wouldn't be even popular among people like him. So I had to change a word.)

[Bill Spight]

I think that the main thing that will meet player's opposition is the fact that the button is supposed to be worth 0.5 points, but when you count the game filling territory with the prisoners, the button is actually worth zero !

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It is only here to trigger a different rule about who's passing last.

I can't imagine players accepting that.

Actually, it's the other way around. The rule about who passes last is one way to implement the button. Another way is to say that Black pays one point to make the first pass, but White does not (by the WMSG rules). The original idea of pass stones was to implement area scoring, it was not that area scoring was a way to trigger pass stones.

[RobertJasiek]

when hearing that the area scoring is equivalent to the AGA territory scoring, the person will say "Well.. that is just a rule theoretician's proof

I am not talking about equivalence of scoring rules. I talk about equivalence of positional judgement and endgame evaluation under a) territory scoring rules or b) area scoring rules. Equivalence of positional judgement and endgame evaluation do not require equivalence of scoring rules a la AGA Rules. Equivalence of positional judgement and endgame evaluation can be applied to games played under every ruleset of territory or area scoring: Japanese, Korean, Chinese etc.

Players must make a move within 30 sec or 1 min during major tournaments. They never count area to see if they have 185 points.

I reply here: viewtopic.php?p=246255#p246255