Cassandra wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:
1. Article 2's commentary 1 says "The making of moves in alternation is a right." That's it. It seems like a blunt, comes-out-of-nowhere statement. In fact, it reflects a huge debate in Japan going back to 1928 as to whether making a move was a right or an obligation. For a Japanese this comment 2.1 does not come out of nowhere - it has a huge context.
I read that but not having not seen the previous arguments, my understanding is that 着手 is an "allowance" or "right," but not an "obligation" because the player may choose 着手の放棄 instead. I appreciate your comments because I think there is a difference between 着手の放棄 and "passing your turn to your opponent." 着手の放棄 is not パス, even if it might commonly be called that.
In the commentaries, "着手放棄" (being "commonly called "パス") and "パス" are BOTH utilised for "abandoning a move".
However, it should be evident that "パス" as synonym for "着手放棄" is NOT the same as "パス" as synonym for "あなたの番" (= "your turn") in the MIDDLE of a MEANINGFUL sequence where one side does not have any suitable board point left for placing a stone (please refer e.g. to L&D example 7-2).
This is making my head spin, not least because Davis and Cassandra are arguing with each other but seem to be saying the same thing.
I've said this already, but have been ignored, so I'll try again here: in the sequence of ordinary play White plays, Black plays, White passes, Black is now allowed to play
at once. No shilly-shallying about two passes and resuming play.
Here is an example from Japanese pro play (Game 5 of the 2008 Kisei):
- pass.jpg (52.68 KiB) Viewed 23220 times
Move 192 (actually 292) is a pass (パス）and move 293 takes a ko (コウ取る). There is no reference to shilly-shallying and the exchange doesn't even merit a mention in the commentary. Everybody in Japan knows what transpired.
The 1949 rules spells it out (after telling us in Article 35 that the game ends when both players agree):
第36条 終局について双方意見が一致しないときは、終局したことを認める方は、自己の着手を放棄して、相手方に着手させることができる。
2 前項によって着手を放棄した後であっても、必要と認めるときは、着手放棄者は、随時交互着手を復活する自由を有する。
Article 36 If the two sides do not agree that game is over, the side that judges the game is over may relinquish his own move and allow the opposing side to play.
2 Even if it is after relinquishing a move in accordance with the preceding paragraph, if the relinquishing player deems it necessary, he has the freedom to resume alternate moves at any time.
After these rules were published there was considerable research into rules in Japan. This was not based so much on dissatisfaction with the 1949 rules as on increasing awareness of other rulesets, obviously Chinese rules most of all, but there was also the discovery of Tibetan rules, and a set called "Taiwan rules" in Japan attracted attention as a form of Chinese rules with Japanese element (this was not Ing rules: its main feature was the gote no tedomari). In 1960 the noted researcher Kaise Takaaki published a complete draft for the "Kaise Rules" which essentially are the current AGA rules - they include pass stones. Kaise was co-opted onto the Rules Committee that led to the 1989 (and was given space in Kido to voice his opinions), but none of his, or similar ideas, were adopted.
There were also occurrences of quadruple ko to excite the rules mavens in this period. The first was in the 1963 Oteai and a couple of others followed. These were handled as void games. They may have excited the mavens but did not excite controversy.
Thus, when the 1989 rules were published, the Preamble outlined four principles that had governed the committee's work. The first was (1) 日本の伝統的な対局方法を遵守する。(We shall adhere to the traditional way of play in Japan.). Principle 2 was to rationalise and clarify the latent principles of
Japanese rules. Only in Principle 3 did the rest of the world get a look-in: We shall pursue go rules for common use throughout the world. And Principle 4 was a nod towards listening to proposals for revisions in future. But these four principles were immediately followed by a caveat: namely that ii has been determined that the basis will be the scope within which go is played in Japan.
In other words, the way of play described in 1949 applies unless specifically overridden.
A pass does hand the right to move to the opponent.
As I have said in another thread, amateurs may play under Marquis of Queensbury rules and let the passer resume play after pointing out necessary moves. But M of Q rules are not Japanese rules.
white has no interesting move => white pass => black pass (black is not allowed to play a move after a pass) => game stops.
This continues for a bit until dame and threats are all used, white takes the ko, doesn't connect, and the game ends. I don't know what was really going on between these two at the time, but it seems like the "normal" game ended back with W248 and I am not going to take White's pass at W292 as hard evidence for what the rules on passing actually are.