How do Japanese rules handle this?

CDavis7M · **#101**

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

nobody can claim to have the correct understanding.

Actually, isn't everybody claiming to have the correct understanding? Well, here's my understanding of what L&D "confirmation" means:

If :wc:

can be captured and newly form uncapturable stones :wt:

without

being captured. Then showing that :wc:

and

can be captured while only newly forming uncapturable stones :wt:

again does not confirm anything beyond :wc:

being alive. :ws:

is extraneous. So :ws:

is dead.
--------------------

John Fairbairn wrote:

Code:

[b]NEW TRANSLATION
Article 7.1 (Dead or alive)
Stones which cannot be captured by moves of the opponent, or stones which, even if they can be captured, can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent, are called 'live stones.' Stones other than live stones are called 'dead stones.'[/b]

I accept Fairbairn's wording of Article 7-1. It is similar to what I understood though "newly formed stones" is a new perspective. Also, my position is not necessarily based on Article 7-1. The basis of my position is Article 9-1 End-of-Game and the term 確認:

Kakunin 確認 n. confirmation; affirmation; certification; corroboration; validation.
A Japanese-language dictionary defines 確認 as involving a 争い (dispute) or 疑い (doubt, uncertainty) that is 認める(recognized, deemed) and はっきり (made clear).
The English definitions of confirmation, affirmation, certification, corroboration, and validation all require some uncertainty or informality in a determination or declaration that is now being solidified, firmed, or formalized.

Therefore any "confirmation" of Life & Death after the game is stopped must involve some uncertainty or unknown status that is being deemed or clarified, by definition. And so by definition, if some capturable stones :wc:

can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent regardless of whether other stones :ws:

are captured, then the status of the other stones :ws:

cannot be said to be "confirmed" based on the newly formed stones :wt:

. Showing a variation with the same newly formed stones :wt:

to pretend that the other stones :ws:

are alive does not work because it does not clarify anything that was unknown -- those stones :wt:

could already be newly formed and uncapturable without those stones :ws:

being captured.

Again, my position does not rely on the definition of Life and Death, but on an understanding of what it means to CONFIRM Life and Death.

----------

Variations 1 and 2 show reasons why the 1 stone :wc:

is alive separate from the 5 White stones :ws:

in the corner. Variation 3 shows the reason why the 5 stones :ws:

are dead.

Variation 1: Black does not bother to capture the 5 stones because their L&D is not being confirmed. Doing so would not "confirm" anything about the 1 stone :wc:

. Only the status of the 1 stone :wc:

is being confirmed. The newly formed stones :wt:

are uncapturable by virtue of having captured Black's :bx:

stones.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ pass, pass, pass $$ ---------------------- $$ | O . O . X 2 3 O . . O-O . O . X 8 Z O . . O-O . O . X Q M O . . O $$ | O O O X W X O O O O O-O O O X 6 Z O O O O O-O O O X Q M O O O O O $$ | X X X O 1 O O . O . .-X X X O Z O O . O . .-X X X O M O O . O . . $$ | X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . . $$ | . X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . . $$ | X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Variation 2: Similar to variation 1 except that Black happens to capture the 5 White stones. However, only the status of the 1 stone :wc:

is being confirmed. The newly formed stones :wt:

are uncapturable by virtue of having captured Black's :bx:

stones.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ pass, pass, pass $$ ---------------------- $$ | O . O . X 2 3 O . . O-O 7 O 5 X 8 Z O . . O-. X . X X Q M O . . O $$ | O O O X W X O O O O O-O O O X 6 Z O O O O O-. . . X Q M O O O O O $$ | X X X O 1 O O . O . .-X X X O Z O O . O . .-X X X O M O O . O . . $$ | X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . . $$ | . X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . . $$ | X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Variation 3: This is the exact same as Variation 2 except that the L&D status of the 5 stones is being considered separate from the 1 stone. When considering the 5 stones separately, they can newly form stones that are uncapturable as long as the 1 stone is captured. However, these newly uncapturable stones can be newly formed by the capture of the 1 stone alone as in Variation 1. These newly formed stones are already known to be formable from the capture of the 1 stone alone. Capturing 5 stones in addition to the one stone is extraneous activity. There is nothing unknown that is being confirmed. The 5 stones cannot be confirmed as alive, so they are dead.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ pass, pass, pass $$ ---------------------- $$ | @ . @ . X 2 3 O . . O-O 7 O 5 X 8 Z O . . O-. X . X X Q M O . . O $$ | @ @ @ X O X O O O O O-O O O X 6 Z O O O O O-. . . X Q M O O O O O $$ | X X X O 1 O O . O . .-X X X O Z O O . O . .-X X X O M O O . O . . $$ | X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . .-X . X O O O O O . . . $$ | . X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . .-. X X . . . . . . . . $$ | X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . .-X X . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

----------

If :wc:

can be captured and newly form uncapturable stones :wt:

without

being captured. Then showing that :wc:

and

can be captured while still newly forming uncapturable stones :wt:

does not confirm anything beyond :wc:

being alive. :ws:

is dead.

kvasir · **#102**

CDavis7M wrote:

Therefore any "confirmation" of Life & Death after the game is stopped must involve some uncertainty or unknown status that is being deemed or clarified, by definition. And so by definition, if some capturable stones can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent regardless of whether other stones are captured, then the status of the other stones cannot be said to be "confirmed" based on the newly formed stones . Showing a variation with the same newly formed stones to pretend that the other stones are alive does not work because it does not clarify anything that was unknown -- those stones could already be newly formed and uncapturable without those stones being captured.

My dictionary says that 'confirmation' is the "the process of supporting a statement by evidence" and 'confirming' is "to state or show that (something) is true or correct". There is ofcourse no requirement that something is not already known when it is confirmed; I can confirm this.

I do not understand when you talk about first confirming the 1 stone and then the 5 stones but say that some arguments are invalid once the 1 stone has been confirmed because something is now "already known" and therefore excluded. That is, you seem to exclude the new stones because it was "already known" that they could be played. Would I be allowed to claim that the 5 stones are alive but the 1 stone is not because I confirmed the status of the 5 stones first and now it is "already known" that some new stones can be played and this won't be accepted to show that the 1 stone is alive.

You appear to discus status confirmation as a sequence of steps were it is allowed to refer back to prior steps and claim something is now "known" and has to be excluded for the remaining steps. How do you decide the order of steps? Isn't this bound to lead to arguments about the order of steps? Finally, if this was really required to reach the right conclusions in status confirmation, then would there not be an example of this in the life and death examples?

Basically, I don't think status confirmation can require us to know anything about which stones we have already addressed and which not. Such knowledge might be useful to speed up the process or simplify it but any argument that appears to depend on the order in which the status confirmation is done is very suspect. For one thing there is nothing like that in the examples.

CDavis7M · **#103**

kvasir wrote:

My dictionary says that 'confirmation' is the "the process of supporting a statement by evidence" and 'confirming' is "to state or show that (something) is true or correct". There is ofcourse no requirement that something is not already known when it is confirmed; I can confirm this.

If something needs to be supported by evidence, how could it be that there is nothing unknown about that thing? If nothing is unknown, then why is evidence being submitted at all? What is the evidence showing except something that was unknown? And the second definition still involves something unknown. When a person "confirms" that something is true or false, they do so in a situation where it is unknown whether the person (still) considers it to be true or false. If it was already known what their statement would be, there is no reason to "confirm" it, it would be known. "Confirmation" absolutely requires something to be unknown, even if it is only a question of whether a person will state the thing same thing again.

And it's nice to talk about things that are not the rules, but what does your dictionary say about 確認? Because my dictionary defines it using 争い and 疑い.

----------

kvasir wrote:

I do not understand when you talk about first confirming the 1 stone and then the 5 stones but say that some arguments are invalid once the 1 stone has been confirmed because something is now "already known" and therefore excluded. That is, you seem to exclude the new stones because it was "already known" that they could be played. Would I be allowed to claim that the 5 stones are alive but the 1 stone is not because I confirmed the status of the 5 stones first and now it is "already known" that some new stones can be played and this won't be accepted to show that the 1 stone is alive.

You appear to discus status confirmation as a sequence of steps were it is allowed to refer back to prior steps and claim something is now "known" and has to be excluded for the remaining steps. How do you decide the order of steps? Isn't this bound to lead to arguments about the order of steps?

Humans (most) do not behave like computers running an algorithm. Regardless of whether the players confirm the status of the 1 stone first or the 5 stones first, they will eventually realize that the 1 stone is alive without the 5 stones being captured at all. Gerard already asked whether order was important to my position and I explained why not: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=269860#p269860.

---------------

kvasir wrote:

Finally, if this was really required to reach the right conclusions in status confirmation, then would there not be an example of this in the life and death examples?

Let me start by asking this: if it was possible for stones to be capturable but alive with territory (not dame) in L&D confirmation without there being a snapback or nakade shape, then would there not be an example of this in the Japanese Rules? Since this position has a ko and does not involve a snapback or nakade shape, then it must be the case that there is dame, right?

As to your question, I think it's silly to pretend that a group of stones is alive by adding a stone to a different group of independently alive stones. I'm not surprised that the Japanese rules didn't include an example to scold the players.

If you are looking for an example where status confirmation happens in steps and the players must determine whether a subset of the stones are alive or not, then Example 24 is the one and I've already brought it up. In explanation (1) of Ex. 24 it states that the White stones (all of them) are alive. It mentions there is an external dame to fill to get territory. In explanation (2) it considers :wt:

and

separately. It doesn't get into details but explains that :wt:

is dead and :ws:

is alive.

If the players considered :wt:

, they might consider it alive since they can play an uncapturable stone at point 'c'. But after they consider the status of :ws:

they will realize that it is :ws:

that is alive because it cannot be captured by connecting at 'c'. If :ws:

is already alive by connecting at 'c', then :wt:

cannot be alive because of a play at 'c' -- that confirms nothing. It is already known that :ws:

is alive.

----------

kvasir wrote:

Basically, I don't think status confirmation can require us to know anything about which stones we have already addressed and which not. Such knowledge might be useful to speed up the process or simplify it but any argument that appears to depend on the order in which the status confirmation is done is very suspect. For one thing there is nothing like that in the examples.

Status confirmation absolutely requires the players to know which stones have been addressed and to confirm the status of certain groups of stones first. If the players did not already confirm that the White group with 2 eyes cannot be captured, then they would not even know that the newly placed stones capturing black are uncapturable. If the nearby stones were not alive, the hoped-uncapturable stones might still die -- like in seki collapse. Stones might be in seki, but once it is known that it collapsed, one side is dead.

Cassandra · **#104**

CDavis7M wrote:

Status confirmation absolutely requires the players ... to confirm the status of certain groups of stones first.

Each and every status confirmation starts with the board position at the end of "play".

"Stones which cannot be captured by moves of the opponent,"
I.e. the opponent tried / tries to capture stones, but failed / will fail.

"or stones which, even if they can be captured,"
I.e. the opponent tried / tries to capture stones, and succeeded / will succeed.

"can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent,"
I.e. the opponent tried / tries to capture stones, but failed / will fail.

The number of trials is not limited!!!

But at some point, sooner or later, the opponent will realise his inability to succeed.
They will be glad and happy to have their successes noted.

kvasir · **#105**

CDavis7M wrote:

And it's nice to talk about things that are not the rules, but what does your dictionary say about 確認? Because my dictionary defines it using 争い and 疑い.

Common! It is 'confirming' same as in 'confirming a hotel booking', 'acknowledge' as in 'acknowledge a receipt' and so forth. It is 'life and death review' or 'life and death acknowledgment' not 'life and death conflict'.

jann · **#106**

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Anyway what is YOUR own interpretation? (I can easily change mine providing the new interpretation sounds clear). IOW do you agree that with your approach the group of 1 white stone is dead => seki => finally the two interpretations lead to the same result?

I think that only counting stones that only became possible because of the capture is logically necessary (except for locality based approaches). So 1 stone in torazu3 is dead, because capturing it has no effect and does not change anything wrt new plays. I don't see a problem with this, this is just go reality.

kvasir wrote:

I actually don't know what this diagram was supposed to show beyond example 5, but I may also have confused with what you said about example 4 in the same post.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

As I wrote the interesting question here is the life of W right strings. W 1 stone is likely dead but this is irrelevant here. B 4 stones are alive (partially reestablishable).

W rightmost string is alive (just like in original example 5, or its twins left to it). What this example shows is that the new uncapturable stones can happen much earlier than the actual capture (so you cannot just count stones after the capture - Cassandra), and also that it doesn't matter if the new stones were already made possible by earlier preparatory captures (like capturing the first of the three W twin strings - CDavis7M).

The rightmost W string is alive because capturing it would necessarily "give rise" to new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position). What you seem to missed is how strong W's claim is here, because to capture on the right B would need to take an areawise loss on the left (even giving up those intersections in torazu3 that he could have kept otherwise).

What happens is similar to example 2: to capture inside you need to give up something outside. This is obviously enabling in every sense - I'm not hung up on this word itself but the logical concept it represents. W rightmost string is uncapturable without taking a loss elsewhere.

kvasir wrote:

I have no idea why you describe this as a traditional understanding of the 'enable rule'.

Because this is how most people understood the rule decades ago, when all this was discussed in the usenet era. And from what I saw so far, this is the only approach that works in a logical sense (besides maybe locality hacks).

kvasir · **#107**

jann wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

As I wrote the interesting question here is the life of W right strings. W 1 stone is likely dead but this is irrelevant here. B 4 stones are alive (partially reestablishable).

It is you that is claiming these examples from J89 are wrong, that has nothing to do with the righthand side of that position.

Now you say the 1 stone is "likely" dead (you don't know?) and the 4 black stones are alive. Does that also apply to example 1? If the 4 stones are alive but the 1 stone is dead then the marked points are black territory. This is 3 points of territory for black when J89 concludes it is 0 points and Shuwa concluded it was 3 points for white. This is no small problem or minor error.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ ------------- $$ | C X X O . . $$ | W X X O . . $$ | X O O O . . $$ | X X X . . . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

jann wrote:

Because this is how most people understood the rule decades ago, when all this was discussed in the usenet era. And from what I saw so far, this is the only approach that works in a logical sense (besides maybe locality hacks).

Still, it is contradicted by the examples and you are claiming that is because the examples are wrong. I don't understand why you expect anyone to believe this.

jann · **#108**

kvasir wrote:

Now you say the 1 stone is "likely" dead (you don't know?) and the 4 black stones are alive. Does that also apply to example 1? If the 4 stones are alive but the 1 stone is dead then the marked points are black territory. This is 3 points of territory for black when J89 concludes it is 0 points and Shuwa concluded it was 3 points for white. This is no small problem or minor error

Even in the old posts Gérard linked I wrote that the 1 stone is dead and 4 stones are alive under enable. This is just how the concept itself works out there, because capturing the 1 stone does not affect further plays and doesn't give rise (in a logically verifiable sense) to further stones. And the written rule clearly require some kind of causal connection between the new stones and the capture (or the captured string at least).

But I also said that the 1 stone is debatable and interpretation-dependent (and doesn't matter much in example 5 or my variant which is seki anyway). One just needs to find a logical connection between the new stones there and the nearby captured one (maybe based on locality). Still, I yet to see any other interpretation that would be simply and logically evaluatable in all examples, without being clearly abusable in other examples. If you know such, please do share.

J89 break away with traditions and CGT-correct scores, and introduced a new approach to L/D. Stones are alive if they cannot be CLEANLY captured without compensation / enabling something / giving rise to or forming new stones (vagueness intended). IMO this is great step forward. The way this works out in torazu3 is not my fault, regardless if the commentary wrote (whether by oversight or by intention) that the single stone is alive.

Cassandra · **#109**

jann wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

As I wrote the interesting question here is the life of W right strings. W 1 stone is likely dead but this is irrelevant here. B 4 stones are alive (partially reestablishable).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . W X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

The more seki value you have attached "behind" this kind of "no-game-end-seki" at the left (marked), the greater the deviation from the "realistic" status of this area becomes.
The same principle as below also applies for your extension to L&D Example 4.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 1 O X X X P P P P X P P X P P | $$ | X X O O X X X . P X . P X . P | $$ | X X O . O O X . P X . P X . P | $$ | O O O O . O X X P X X P X X P | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

In the play-sequence after :b1:

, White's seven-stone group in the centre will become play-captured; her other groups at the right are dead by collapse of the temporary seki.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 1 O X X X P P P P X P P X P P | $$ | X X O O X X X . P X . P X . P | $$ | X X O . O O X . P X . P X . P | $$ | O O O O . O X X P X X P X X P | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

The same will be true after a White play-move :w1:

in the corner.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | # # O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | # # O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

White's single stone at the left could be considered "dead", as there is no way for its rebirth.
Black's four stones, however, cannot be considered "independently alive", as there is no way for their COMPLETE rebirth. These stones are "alive in seki".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . O B B B P P P P B P P B P P | $$ | X X O O B B B C P B C P B C P | $$ | X X O . O O B C P B C P B C P | $$ | O O O O . O B B P B B P B B P | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

The largest part of the board is Black territory!

Gérard TAILLE · **#110**

kvasir wrote:

jann wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

As I wrote the interesting question here is the life of W right strings. W 1 stone is likely dead but this is irrelevant here. B 4 stones are alive (partially reestablishable).

It is you that is claiming these examples from J89 are wrong, that has nothing to do with the righthand side of that position.

Now you say the 1 stone is "likely" dead (you don't know?) and the 4 black stones are alive. Does that also apply to example 1? If the 4 stones are alive but the 1 stone is dead then the marked points are black territory. This is 3 points of territory for black when J89 concludes it is 0 points and Shuwa concluded it was 3 points for white. This is no small problem or minor error.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ ------------- $$ | C X X O . . $$ | W X X O . . $$ | X O O O . . $$ | X X X . . . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

jann wrote:

Because this is how most people understood the rule decades ago, when all this was discussed in the usenet era. And from what I saw so far, this is the only approach that works in a logical sense (besides maybe locality hacks).

Still, it is contradicted by the examples and you are claiming that is because the examples are wrong. I don't understand why you expect anyone to believe this.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ ------------- $$ | . X X O . . $$ | O X X O . . $$ | X O O O . . $$ | X X X . . . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

For me it does not matter if the result is seki or +3 for black because in any case white will continue the game. See on the subject the post https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=267480#p267480
BTW I prefer the result +3 for black but a seki doesn't harm.

Positions where a teire move is necessary in one interpretation and not in an other interpretation are more problematic because the results of the game are really different.

CDavis7M · **#111**

kvasir wrote:

CDavis7M wrote:

And it's nice to talk about things that are not the rules, but what does your dictionary say about 確認? Because my dictionary defines it using 争い and 疑い.

Common! It is 'confirming' same as in 'confirming a hotel booking', 'acknowledge' as in 'acknowledge a receipt' and so forth.

Even these situations involve something unknown -- whether the reservation was actually booked or not. And even then, it's not like the hotel can't become overbooked. Some confirmation that is.

CDavis7M · **#112**

jann wrote:

So 1 stone in torazu3 is dead, because capturing it has no effect and does not change anything wrt new plays.

The Japanese Rules specifically state that the 1 stone is alive. L&D has nothing to do with whether the stone "changes anything wrt new plays."

Being adamant in the face of inconsistency has as much logic as a flat Earth.

----------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

jann wrote:

W rightmost string is alive (just like in original example 5, or its twins left to it). What this example shows is that the new uncapturable stones can happen much earlier than the actual capture (so you cannot just count stones after the capture - Cassandra), and also that it doesn't matter if the new stones were already made possible by earlier preparatory captures (like capturing the first of the three W twin strings - CDavis7M).

The 5 White stones on the right are dead. Just because the White stones on the left can be captured but can newly form uncapturable stones does not mean that the White stones on the right are alive -- it just means that the stones on the left are alive.

Gérard TAILLE · **#113**

jann wrote:

I think I did above (around "the advantage of the straightforward/traditional interpretation"), but to make it clear:

"Capturing a string WOULD ENABLE" the opponent to play a new uncapturable stone if:

the new stone cannot be played vs resistance in the original position
(proving that it was ENABLED or made possible in the course of the capture)
the string is not capturable without the new stone getting played
(proving that capturing it WOULD indeed necessarily enable the stone)

I am not sure of my understanding.

Let's take this position you proposed yourself

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X O O O O O | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

What is the status of the marked white stones?
Taking your wording I cannot find clearly a new white stone that will be enable by the capture of the marked group (because the choice of the new uncapturable white stone is made by black and not by white) => the marked group is dead.
Is it really your view or is it an issue with your wording?

CDavis7M · **#114**

Cassandra wrote:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | # # O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | # # O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

White's single stone at the left could be considered "dead", as there is no way for its rebirth.
Black's four stones, however, cannot be considered "independently alive", as there is no way for their COMPLETE rebirth. These stones are "alive in seki".

The Japanese rules specifically state that the 1 stone is alive and the 4 stones are alive because they can newly form uncapturable stones. But yes, they are seki because they have dame.

jann · **#115**

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Let's take this position you proposed yourself

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X O O O O O | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

What is the status of the marked white stones?
Taking your wording I cannot find clearly a new white stone that will be enable by the capture of the marked group (because the choice of the new uncapturable white stone is made by black and not by white) => the marked group is dead.
Is it really your view or is it an issue with your wording?

The wording, and maybe the order of the two points as well. B needs to show a sequence that captures the disputed W string without W playing new uncapturable stones, OR, if W did play a new uncapturable stone, B needs to show another sequence to show how W could have played that stone regardless of the capture, already in/from the original position, and vs resistance (to prove that it was unrelated to and not made possible because of the capture).

Basically he needs to prove that he can capture without the disputed string "giving rise" or "forming" new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position, of course) - regardless of when and how those new uncapturable stones were formed during the capture attempt, all that matters is a causal relationship.

Similarly the right side in the other position (where Cassandra seemed to mis-apply his own rules

):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . O X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Cassandra · **#116**

jann wrote:

Similarly the right side in the other position (where Cassandra seemed to mis-apply his own rules

):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . O X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Probably you mis-interpreted my posting :razz:

My favourite understanding:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . @ # # # @ @ @ @ # @ @ # @ @ | $$ | # # W W # # # . @ # . @ # . @ | $$ | # # W . W W # . @ # . @ # . @ | $$ | W W W W . W # # @ # # @ # # @ | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

The disputed area is a large seki (White's group in the lower left is alive).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | ? ? X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | ? ? O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | ? ? O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

White is unable to prove that she controls the entire shadowed area (there will be at least one permanent Black stone included, sequence is assumed to be well known).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | $$ | ? ? O O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | $$ | ? ? O . O O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | $$ | O O O O . O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Black is unable to prove that he controls the entire shadowed area (there will be at least one permanent White stone included, exemplary sequence below).

J89 with "new" stone AFTER capture:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . @ # # # @ @ @ @ # @ @ # @ @ | $$ | # # W W # # # . @ # . @ # . @ | $$ | # # W . W W # . @ # . @ # . @ | $$ | W W W W . W # # @ # # @ # # @ | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

The disputed area is a large seki (White's group in the lower left is alive).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 1 O X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | X 2 X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 5 O X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | 4 3 O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | . . O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | X 8 X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | O X O O X X X 7 O X . O X . O | $$ | . 6 O . O O X 9 O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

is played inside the disputed area AFTER the capture of White's single stone (was at :w8:

), so it is alive.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm10 $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . O X X X C C C C X O O X O O | $$ | O 1 O O X X X X C X 2 O X . O | $$ | . O O . O O X X C X 4 O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X C X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

is played inside the disputed area AFTER the capture of White's central group, so :wc:

is alive.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm10 $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 5 O X X X . . . . X C C X O O | $$ | O O O O X X X X . X X C X 6 O | $$ | . O O . O O X X . X X C X 8 O | $$ | O O O O . O X X . X X C X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

is played inside the disputed area AFTER the capture of White's second group, so :wc:

is alive.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm18 $$ --------------------------------- $$ | O O X X X . . . . X . . X C C | $$ | O O O O X X X X . X X . X X C | $$ | 1 O O . O O X X . X X . X X C | $$ | O O O O . O X X . X X . X X C | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

is played inside the disputed area AFTER the capture of White's third group, so :wc:

is alive.

I assume that the sequence for proving Black's four-stone group alive is well known.

During "play":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 1 O X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

*snip*

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . W B B B . . . . B P P B P P | $$ | W . W W B B B B . B . P B . P | $$ | . W W . W W B B . B . P B . P | $$ | W W W W . W B B . B B P B B P | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

White has territory at the left, Black has territory at the right.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 1 O X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

*snip*

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . W B B B . . . . B P P B P P | $$ | . . W W B B B B . B . P B . P | $$ | W W W . W W B B . B . P B . P | $$ | W W W W . W B B . B B P B B P | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

White has territory at the left, Black has territory at the right.

Cassandra · **#117**

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Let's take this position you proposed yourself

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X O O O O O | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

What is the status of the marked white stones?
Taking your wording I cannot find clearly a new white stone that will be enable by the capture of the marked group (because the choice of the new uncapturable white stone is made by black and not by white) => the marked group is dead.
Is it really your view or is it an issue with your wording?

Jann's position above is NOT the same as the following:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X X . X X X | $$ | X X . . . . . | $$ | O O X X X X X | $$ | O O X Q Q Q X | $$ | . O X Q Q . X | $$ | O O X Q Q Q X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

If this was this position at the end of the game, White's marked group would be dead.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

J89 without "my" thereafter-issue:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X Q Q Q Q Q | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

White's marked stones "can" be captured, i.e. they "will" become captured. We know this FUTURE state of the board for sure.

However, ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X Q Q Q Q Q | $$ | C O X X X X X | $$ | C O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | B O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

... to achieve his goal, Black MUST allow "new" permanent White stones to be created in the circled spots on the left.
This (early) permission is the mandatory requirement for the (later) capture of White's stones, so these are alive.

Gérard TAILLE · **#118**

jann wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Let's take this position you proposed yourself

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X O O O O O | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

What is the status of the marked white stones?
Taking your wording I cannot find clearly a new white stone that will be enable by the capture of the marked group (because the choice of the new uncapturable white stone is made by black and not by white) => the marked group is dead.
Is it really your view or is it an issue with your wording?

The wording, and maybe the order of the two points as well. B needs to show a sequence that captures the disputed W string without W playing new uncapturable stones, OR, if W did play a new uncapturable stone, B needs to show another sequence to show how W could have played that stone regardless of the capture, already in/from the original position, and vs resistance (to prove that it was unrelated to and not made possible because of the capture).

Basically he needs to prove that he can capture without the disputed string "giving rise" or "forming" new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position, of course) - regardless of when and how those new uncapturable stones were formed during the capture attempt, all that matters is a causal relationship.

Similarly the right side in the other position (where Cassandra seemed to mis-apply his own rules

):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . O X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

I agree completly with your text but the wording you proposed does not look perfect.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ ----------------------------- $$ | . X X O . O X . . . X . Q | $$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X . | $$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

What is the status of the white marked stone? No doubt it is dead but what about your wording, strictly speaking ?

1) Sequence to capture the white stone:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ----------------------------- $$ | 2 X X O . O X . . . X 1 Q | $$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X 3 | $$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ----------------------------- $$ | O 4 . O . O X . . . X X . | $$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X X | $$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

2) Is it possible to prove that white can play on :w4:

in the above diagram against any resistance?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B pass $$ ----------------------------- $$ | 2 3 4 O . O X . . . X . O | $$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X . | $$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

and white cannot play on :b3:

(I mean on :w4:

in the previous diagram)
It was to resolve such issue I proposed an "extension" in my wording.

jann · **#119**

Cassandra wrote:

J89 without "my" thereafter-issue:
...
White's marked stones "can" be captured, i.e. they "will" become captured. We know this FUTURE state of the board for sure.
However, ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X Q Q Q Q Q | $$ | C O X X X X X | $$ | C O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | B O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]

... to achieve his goal, Black MUST allow "new" permanent White stones to be created in the circled spots on the left.
This (early) permission is the mandatory requirement for the (later) capture of White's stones, so these are alive.

This seem to match my view, and this is also why I considered your "new stones after capture" idea (and similar timing based ideas) not correct, even theoretically: it doesn't give L/D for the stopped/scoring position, but for a later imaginary position.

It is true that once B captures the top, allowing new uncapturable stones on left, all that will be left on the board is a big dead W chunk in bottom right. At THAT POINT it will be dead (because it cannot give rise FURTHER new stones, and B don't need to take FURTHER losses to capture it). But this doesn't mean it was dead in the original position!

From that point still, capturing it would indeed produce new stones (and even lose one of B nakade strings), so there is still life in it. B needs actual moves to kill it, eliminating its future potential. And we want to score the original position according to L/D in that position, not L/D in a different position.

jann · **#120**

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

I agree completly with your text but the wording you proposed does not look perfect.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ ----------------------------- $$ | . X X O . O X . . . X . Q | $$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X . | $$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . |[/go]

What is the status of the white marked stone? No doubt it is dead but what about your wording, strictly speaking ?

Yes, this is exactly why I suggested adding the two B stones to your earlier position, to ensure B will have the choice even with W starting. B will find it hard to prove that W could have played either spot, for equal consequence, just only on B's choice (probably not impossible to prove, but still not nice).

IMO the real issue here is that J89 chose to formulate the rule around new STONES. It would be probably more robust if the rule itself would have been formulated differently:

A string is dead if the opponent can take control (occupy or surround by uncapturable stones) of all its intersections, without allowing the player to control another intersection in exchange, that he couldn't have controlled otherwise.

This would probably be similar to your proposal - and interestingly, this would flip the ruling in lightvector's position:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . . . . . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | X O O O . . $$ | W X X O . . $$ | . X O O . . $$ | X X O . . . $$ | O X O . . . $$ | . O O . . . $$ -----------[/go]

How do Japanese rules handle this?

Who is online