I know you're being facetious, but I'd be surprised if allowing them to publish didn't implicitly grant them rights to republish in different forums.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

What I was talking about was the use of the group tax as we know it under modern stone scoring. Ancient scoring, as indicated by the Dunhuang scroll, made no explicit mention of a group tax. The players actually, or in effect, play until neither side is willing to make a play (both filled to capacity). With an independently live group, that means playing on until there are two one-point eyes. With a seki, it means playing on until each group has zero or one eye, depending upon circumstances. (I think that J. F. should not have used the English "string", since a living group may consist of two strings, even after "filling to capacity".) Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.

Now in practice, humans would quickly see that they did not actually have to play the game out to capacity, they could count territory as equivalent to stones as long as they remembered not to count the eyes necessary for life. Therein, I think, lies the origin of the group tax. Applying it to seki was a later refinement, if we can call it that.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It is a bit facetious, yes Still a more realistic case was when I wrote an article for website A which then turned up in e-journal B. I felt that was naughty!
Almost the same thing happened to some reports I wrote...

_________________
North Lecale

[quote="Javaness2"]It is a bit facetious, yes Still a more realistic case was when I wrote an article for website A which then turned up in e-journal B. I felt that was naughty!
Almost the same thing happened to some reports I wrote...

What, they get cited by the Ig Nobel committee as also-rans?

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

Ig-nobody :p When something gets additionally published elsewhere, as the author, it is quite distasteful to me. Still, it's hard to care much over the work.

_________________
North Lecale

Interesting. Would modern stone scorers have taxed white twice in a seki like the following? White is quite a bit more disconnected here than black was in Jia Xuan's game.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

I agree this all makes sense if coming from stone scoring ("your score is the number of stones you have on the board"). Stone scoring seems quite elegant from a simplicity of rules standpoint; even area scoring needs extra definitions. I wonder how much strategy would differ from current go with the small extra incentive to stay connected and cut your opponent.

I always wondered how much strategy would differ using the Tibetan ko rule, but the trouble with these thoughts is, nobody ever tries to see.

_________________
North Lecale

Your undertand is quite right!!!!You said what I want to express by my poor English.

Note : Group tax is just a simplification technique of counting stone invented in a certain period.

ANd by the way ,all the go game termes in Chinese are very interesting ,very easy to understand,very visualized for starters ！！！！They have their own meaning in Chinese in our life like seki ==both alive.

like air（liberty），it's exact;.it's easier to understand live and dead stone ,and others.it;s the fountainhead of the go game,it has the same signification as it in GongFu ,Chinese medecine .it's a very important concept in Chinese culture.
Group tax ,i think ,is called return(repay) stone better according to the scoring process in ancient

They would have applied the tax to the two White groups and one Black group. Bizarre, but it worked.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Ah, but they also would have given white two points of territory, so that the local score comes out to zero?

Group tax proucess：

at the end of the game,after scoring by Chinese rule ,you must compare the groups the each player has .when one side (A player)has more groups than other (B player),A gives(subtract) a number of stones he has scored to the other player B ,the number is how many groups A has more than B.

All right then, let's up the ante (=

How about this one?

(Position taken from SL - Strange Sekis)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Does B get charged for 4 groups or 3?

Go ahead and specify the count under the different alternatives and state which one you prefer. There is no such thing as a "right" answer, right? It is just that under rule set A the result is X while under rule set B the result is Y. So... what is the point?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Three.

I would not particularly be surprised if some strange seki made the modern group tax give a different answer from not counting eye points necessary for life.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Does Black have one group or two?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Right. As I said, bizarre.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I'm not sure that example works quite as well, since B has points which he can render impossible for white to make a legal play at...it seems easier to justify just calling it 1 group...though I guess it only takes small modification to get to here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

My point was not that White could not play inside a one point Black eye, but that Black could not afford to play there in order to join the two strings into one. That's why the group tax applies to groups, not strings.

BTW, while I think that go where eye points necessary to live do not count would be interesting, I do not think that a group tax is the clearest way to go.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Any recent post hinting at anything being correct is referring to whether "modern stone scoring" which counts eyes in seki and taxes groups (including those in seki) two each is equivalent to stone scoring (your score = the number of your stones on the board).

You can of course have whatever rules you'd like.



I guess this is an example (presented on a 4x8 board), taken from SL - Strange Sekis. There's only one eye point, so "modern stone scoring" doesn't get the same parity as stone scoring even.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

I think I'd be equally interested in the reverse...a "group subsidy" where a player receives two extra points for each separate living group they can make. Like a group tax, I don't think it would have a dramatic effect of strategy, but might have some amusing positions to look at.