It is currently Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:53 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #101 Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:23 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 390
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 35
I just noticed an interesting comment in J89. In commentary on 7.2:

Quote:
If a player whose stone has been captured in a ko has passed for that particular ko
...
the situation for that ko is the same as if the game had been resumed: the player may now capture in that ko again

This liberal phrasing and the "as if the game had been resumed" seems present in the current Japanese text as well (with slighly more verbosity). I'm not sure how literally this can be taken, but this also supports the interpretation that passing for a certain ko in confirmation is only required once - after which it reverts to a normal ko (behaves like in resumption) for the player (thus no double ko flaw / closed loop).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #102 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:57 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 260
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 35
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
I just noticed an interesting comment in J89. In commentary on 7.2:

Quote:
If a player whose stone has been captured in a ko has passed for that particular ko
...
the situation for that ko is the same as if the game had been resumed: the player may now capture in that ko again

This liberal phrasing and the "as if the game had been resumed" seems present in the current Japanese text as well (with slighly more verbosity). I'm not sure how literally this can be taken, but this also supports the interpretation that passing for a certain ko in confirmation is only required once - after which it reverts to a normal ko (behaves like in resumption) for the player (thus no double ko flaw / closed loop).
This is jumping to conclusions. If you look at the actual example, the question is whether black needs to play A to reinforce after "wining" the ko. The answer is YES because otherwise black is dead.

Back to your statement, the reason that black is dead is because even though the most recent move in the game was black taking the ko, white can immediately retake the ko because this is treated as if the game were resumed with white to play (black has passed).

There is no suggestion anywhere in the Examples that passing for the ko once is sufficient such that passes no longer need to be made to retake (e.g., others moves being played is sufficient as in normal gameplay).

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #103 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:46 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 390
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 35
There was no definite conclusion so no jumping either. The notice was not about the actual example but about a side comment in the commentary which may shed some light on how pass for ko is supposed to work and be interpreted ("the situation for that ko is the same as if the game had been resumed").

Also you really should use the English version, your comments doesn't really make sense and sound like you refer to some misunderstood Japanese (you mix up reinforcement in game vs reinforcement in hypothetical play (which is free), also mix up pass for ko vs recapturing after the opponent's pass).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #104 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:40 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 260
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 35
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
Also you really should use the English version, your comments doesn't really make sense and sound like you refer to some misunderstood Japanese (you mix up reinforcement in game vs reinforcement in hypothetical play (which is free), also mix up pass for ko vs recapturing after the opponent's pass).

The conclusion that was jumped to was the conclusion that this statement in the rule comments supports the linked interpretation.

Also, I don't think I was mixing things up. I understand that a reinforcement can be played after the game is stopped. But if an additional stone needs to be played to prove life and death status because playing it could begin a double ko that can't be stopped, then it might seem as if that stone is required. But it's not required to be played. The reason that it's not required is because life and death status is defined by the examples (as precedent) without any need to "play it out". I'm just starting from the board position in the examples as they are given. The way that they work is by definition.

I don't even want to get started on the original post.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #105 Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 8:32 am 
Beginner

Posts: 17
Liked others: 3
Was liked: 0
Rank: 3k
I might have missed something in this thread, but as far as I have seen it proposes a new version of the hypothetical-ko rule and then goes on to apply it to many examples. Is there a known example where this Cassandra proposal of a new hypothetical-play ko rule gives a different life/death status than applying the Jasiek 2003 rules? That, plus the actual informal Japanese professional opinion for that position, would be the most interesting in deciding whether the interpretation can be taken as correct / so far better / so far worse than existing formalizations like Jasiek 2003. My understanding from reading the thread is that so far, the "Cassandra proposal" and the "Jasiek 2003" proposal agree on the shown examples.

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go Worl
Post #106 Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:57 pm 
Beginner

Posts: 17
Liked others: 3
Was liked: 0
Rank: 3k
I have not seen it mentioned in the thread (but maybe I missed it, I did not read everything completely in depth) but any "global enable" rule must include some very tricky definition of what intersection-controlling / stone placements actually count as "new stones ENABLED BY THE CAPTURE". Just "Any sort of new stone at all" cannot do because otherwise, the presence of any one-sided-dame would make all groups of the player immediately alive, which is of course not the interpretation. Even if the specific 1989 model of the Japanese tradition does not explicitly mention locality in the enabling or ko rules, it is a very firm and established principle that Japanese rules actually HAVE locality of life as a principle: any attempt of "global rule" must be very carefully written such that even though it has some global definition, the consequences of one area never "leak" to far away, independent regions (that is, regions separated by pass-alive groups). And based on precedent and universal practice we can be quite sure that if any such a consequence ever emerges, it is a defect in the rules.

https://senseis.xmp.net/?OneSidedDame

According to those I was able to consult, the Japanese stance about this would simply be that the one-sided-dame stones are "not enabled by the capture": the player could already play there to begin with, so there is no "relation" to the capture. It is tricky to find a precise definition of "enable" that correctly models this kind of "causality", and matches all precedents. I haven't been able to find a definition of "what counts as enabled" that at the same time matches all precedents for:

1) The seki in life and death example 2 in the Japanese rules

2) The 3 points without capture position

3) The three examples in this specific reply: https://forums.online-go.com/t/odd-case ... s/24109/64

4) The example in this specific reply: https://forums.online-go.com/t/odd-case ... s/24109/68

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group