OMG ! My feelings are deeply rooted in the chinese rules: the only thing that counts is if the stone is on the board or outside the board, period.

I have no feeling regarding the japanese rule. I'm completely unable to have any intuitive vision of it.
I know it is something about territory minus prisoners minus stones that can't escape capture but that are awarded without having to capture them...
Moreover, the fact that "escaping capture" is defined allowing to play twice in a row (the first move of the confirmation phase can be made by the same player who played the last move of the game) or even by immediately recapturing in a ko (at the start of the confirmation phase, ko bans are lifted), this is something that completely defies my intuition !

For example, if the game stops after closing territories and filling dame, but there is an open ko, and the last move was to capture in this ko, then for me, there should be one point of territory inside this ko, because it is an empty intersection completely surrounded by living stones of the same player (for me, it is forbidden to immediately recapture in a ko, thus the stone that is in atari should be alive if there is nothing more to play for the opponent).
This is perfectly logical if you consider that in AGA rules, the player who fills that ko plays twice while his opponent passes, thus receives two pass stones. The first stone represents the equivalence between the territory and area count methods in AGA rules, the second represents the point of territory that he should have had inside the open ko.

That's my feelings... you can see that they are one thousand miles away from the japanese rules.

This shouldn't be a surprise considering the last two moves were passes (so the ko recapture is not immediate).

Gérard,

Trying to butter me up is completely ineffective. I'm not the extrovert type of person who needs other people's appreciation for their own well-being.

As you can see with Igo Hatsuyôron 120, I am looking for absolute truth. Appreciation and respect for other people's WORK is what counts.
You miss this respect, instead you try to ridicule other people's work results for reasons that I cannot understand.
In this context, I see it as a major weakness on your part that you are not able to differentiate between positions before and after the game has stopped.

Study the positions I have offered you for this purpose. Then maybe you understand, but only maybe.

Let me give you another example.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . O X X . O X . . |
$$ | X X O X . O X X X |
$$ | X X O X O O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X X X X X |
$$ | . . . O O O O O O |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

This position will look familiar to you.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B J89 status confirmation
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . @ # # . @ X . . |
$$ | # # O # . @ X X X |
$$ | # # O # @ @ X . . |
$$ | O O O O X X X X X |
$$ | . . . O O O O O O |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

J89 sees this position in the corner as a Seki.

But this is ONLY due to an excessive interpretation of "enabled", and to the weakness of utilising the same technical term (i.e. "DAME") for two different pairs of shoes.

Let's put these two weaknesses aside for a moment...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B "Two-eyed alive" status confirmation
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . P B B . P X . . |
$$ | # # O B . P X X X |
$$ | # # O B P P X . . |
$$ | O O O O X X X X X |
$$ | . . . O O O O O O |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's four stones at the left are "in-seki alive", as they can be re-established only partially after having been captured.
White's single stone is "not alive", as it cannot be re-established after having been captured.
Black's four stones are "alive", as they cannot be captured, even if White plays first.
White's four stones to the right are "not alive", as they cannot be re-established even partially after having been captured.
As a concluding result, Black has ten points of territory at the top.

You will remenber for sure that you had this six-points area at the top, that is enclosed by Black stones that can become "two-eye-formation", as "territory" as well in a former version of your GT rules.

If you look at my special full-board example, you should see that the appreciation of this six-point area as "Black territory" is much closer to the truth than "seki".
And indeed, it will become Black territory!!!

This position is "Five points without capturing", but these five points are for BLACK, not for White as with "Three points without capturing".
Therefore, we will NEVER EVER see this position AFTER the game stopped. (Exceptions prove the rule. That would be if the outcome of the game is independent of the territorial valuation of this position. Should this position have ever been created.)

Under J89, it will be BLACK who starts the sequence that ends with White's four stones to the right becoming taken off the board. Just because he would lose points if he allowed this position being turned into a seki by status confirmation.

In the "two-eyed alive" world, it will be WHITE who starts the capturing sequence mentioned above. Just because she would lose points if she allowed this position reaching status confirmation untouched.

Seemingly contradictory results of very different rulesets will lead to the SAME conclusion of the board during "play".

But you, apparently being unable to realise this COMMON CONCLUSION, are continually trying to make other rulesets bad, based on your unsufficient understanding of what a "still unfinished position" is.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

I understand Guillaume, the logic of area rules, even with unfinished positions, is far easier to understand.
Thanks anyway because that way I have be able to clarify a little my questions.
In addition I would like to say that on such unfinished positions it is not really an issue to see the rules given different results. I am just try to understand what could be the logic for counting these positions, under territory oriented rules.

After one week it is time to give you the solution of this strange problem.

The WORSE move for black is:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black to play
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | 1 O X . . X O . . |
$$ | X X . . X X O . . |
$$ | O O X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O O O O . . . . |
$$ | O O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

When you apply confirmation phase after this move then all black stones are dead and all the region is white territory.

Assume instead of the you choose to pass:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black to play
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . W X . . X O . . |
$$ | X X . . X X O . . |
$$ | O O X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O O O O . . . . |
$$ | O O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

Now when applying confirmation phase all the black stones are still dead but the marked white stone is also dead by:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B pass
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | 3 W X . . X O . . |
$$ | X X . 1 X X O . . |
$$ | O O X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O O O O . . . . |
$$ | O O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

The result is now an anti seki.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +------------------------+
$$ | . O . X . O X . . O . .
$$ | X O O O X X O O O O . .
$$ | X X X X X O . . . . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

This position is the L&D example 6.
For the time being I studied over all loops involving ko in order to have a better understanding of pass-for-ko or ko-pass and advantageous loop.
I just took a loop at this example 6 showing a loop without any ko. In such position I was convinced that the result should be no doubt a seki but I discovered it is not the case. Looking deeper, the application of J89 (as well as J2003) to this example gives me a seki as result. Could the text given in this example 6 be a translation error?

What is wrong with the commentary, how do you get seki? Normally B starts the cycle in the game for draw. If left as is, B is dead since W can start and kill with bulky5. W is alive since uncapturable even if B starts. (single W stone alive as well since W can either save it immediately or replace with permanent stone, depending on what B tries)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +------------------------+
$$ | . O . X . W X . . O . .
$$ | X O O O X X O O O O . .
$$ | X X X X X O . . . . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Thank you Yann I see where is my mistake. I assumed that in a loop all stones involved in capture are dead but this is not true.

BTW the result is quite uncommon. All the corner is considered white territory but, if black plays first, white is unable to kill black stones. It looks like a teire move is missing but here it is not the case:
I tried to build other example with such strange result.
Here it is with an unfinished position:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | . . O . . X . . . .
$$ | O O O O O X . . . .
$$ | X X X X X X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

white stones are dead => all corner is black territory

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | X . O . . X . . . .
$$ | O O O O O X . . . .
$$ | X X X X X X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

white stones are dead but black stone in the corner is dead => seki

Comparing the two diagrams above I expected a difference of one point at the maximum but here the difference is black territory against seki. It is not easy to understand the justification.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | a . O . 1 X . . . .
$$ | O O O O O X . . . .
$$ | X X X X X X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Black should have atttacked with from the outside, instead of at A from the inside.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Oops, it was not clear.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Position 1
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | . . O . . X . . . .
$$ | O O O O O X . . . .
$$ | X X X X X X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Position 2
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | X . O . . X . . . .
$$ | O O O O O X . . . .
$$ | X X X X X X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Do not consider position 2 beeing a consequence of position 1.
These two positions are only two different positions. I know this position is unfinished (like example 6) but, for consistency and as a go player I expected the result given by the confirmation phase for these two positions will be quite close but is not the case.
More genrally it is the problem of teire moves. In the rule itself as it is strictly written you can claim for a territory even if a teire move has not been played. It may not appear very logical that is the reality of the text.

Here is another example

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | . . . X O . . .
$$ | . . . X O . . .
$$ | X X X X O . . .
$$ | O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Both player made a mistake by passing and now is the discussion for understanding the rule:
White : black stones are dead => all corner is white territory
Black : yes but you missed a teire move => you cannot claim for this territory. BTW why it could not be a black territory knowing I have also missed a teire move?

We all know that some ambiguities exist in J89 and a very strict application of the text may not be suitable.
What about missed teire moves? Surely it is not a easy question probably because the rule has not been written for unfinished positions.

Please refer to https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=267274#p267274 .

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | . . . X O . . .
$$ | . . . X O . . .
$$ | X X X X O . . .
$$ | O O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Yes I agree but what is the conclusion in the diagram above?
White did not make the required teire move to really kill black (and black simply was not aware it could be killed) => what is the result when this teire move is discovered during confirmation phase ?

==> Article 13, Both Players Lose, Clause 1

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Isn't it possible that the two players will consider that "both players lose" is not a suitable result and they decide to agree on the result that will given by the referee, whathever is this decision? IOW, no disagreement => no "both players lose".
In any case, before not agreeing to a result we need first know this result don't we?
It seems my question remains : what is the result in the position above? is it really "both players lose" ?

If White would win the game, even if Black brought his group to life, she would request resumption (or let Black play a teire during status confirmation, to keep the matter simple).
If Black would win the game, even if White killed his group, he would request resumption (or let White play a teire during status confirmation, to keep the matter simple).

Otherwise, "both players lose" might be a better option.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

The problem with "both cannot agree, both lose" idea is that - however absurd, for unsettled position - confirmation does assign a status to each group. It is possible to score the board according to that, and that score will favor one side. That side will "agree to end the game" and will accept that score. So when/how can both actually lose?

I guess an implied meaning could be that a player is expected to :

• either claim that the game is over (thus have no reason to object the opponent moving first in a resumption)
• or request a resumption himself (allowing the opponent to move)

L&D Example 6

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +------------------------+
$$ | . O a X . O X . . O . .
$$ | X O O O X X O O O O . .
$$ | X X X X X O . . . . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

In normal play:
1) black plays at "a" => NO RESULT
2) white plays at "a" => white kill the corner but white lose the game by 0.5 point.

Let's imagine two very strong players able to resign if they lose, even with 0.5 points. What about their thinking in normal play:
Black : if I pass and white adds a move to kill the corner then I win => as black I decide to pass
White : if I pass and confirmation phase take place then I will win the game even without playing at "a" => I pass also
the game stops, white do not want to resume the game and black has to decide if she claims for resumption:
Black : white has not resigned => white thinks she will win with the confirmation phase. I do not understand because I believed that white was obliged to add a teire move => maybe we are not using the same rule If I am right I will not resume the game but if I am wrong I will resume the game.
What will be the result for the referee seeing the teire move has not been played ? The corner is white territory? The corner is seki? Both player lose?
At the end what do you do as black? You resume the game to reach NO RESULT game?

I think teire can always be forced by occupying dame (in resumption if necessary, doesn't matter which side first). There is no teire here since B is dead as it stands.

B will lose if does nothing, so asks for resumption and goes for draw on repetition (W cannot prevent even if going first since cannot afford pointwise).

BTW what is an unfinished position? It seems with this example that the number of points you can reach is not really the relevant. Maybe we have just to take account the four following possible results
1) black wins
2) white wins
3) jigo or NO RESULT (is it the same?)
4) both players lose
Can we say that a position is unfinished if one of the player would obtain a better result by playing instead of stopping the game" ?
Maybe we may add: or would obtain the same result with a better score but it is not that clear because when you are in a losing position and you resign it may be considered a finished position.