Life In 19x19

EdLee wrote:

It's the main reason I do not like the J89 rules.

Hi Bill, follow-up question:
Under each of Chinese rules and J89 rules,
what's the score for this:

$$B komi 0.0, no prisoners
$$ +---------+
$$ | O X . O |
$$ | O O O O |
$$ | X . X X |
$$ | X X . X |
$$ +---------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B komi 0.0, no prisoners
$$ +---------+
$$ | O X . O |
$$ | O O O O |
$$ | X . X X |
$$ | X X . X |
$$ +---------+[/go]

It seems to me that white wins by one point under both rules. It is clearly seki regardless but under Japanese rules white will capture one stone, under Chinese rules he occupies on more point after capturing the stone.

DrStraw wrote:It is clearly seki regardless but under Japanese rules white will capture one stone, ...

If the position shown is the FINAL position of the game, then the result / score is jigo.

If White wanted to win the game, she should have captured Black's single stone earlier.

Black's single stone is not situated inside White's territory, as White does not have any territory. Therefore, this stone cannot be taken of the board after the end of the game to be counted as a prisoner.

DrStraw wrote:It is clearly seki regardless but under Japanese rules white will capture one stone

Will she? Ed's question was "What is the score" (expanding out the apostrophe), present tense. I have often thought "I will win this game", and then not .

I think the two replies to my post indicate an attitude of arguing for the sake of argument.

Otherwise known as strictly following the rules (and I thought you were a fellow pedant). If following the rules gives results that feel wrong to people who know how to play Go then there are problems with the rules, which is why many people have criticised and tried to improve upon the J1989 rules (e.g. Bill Spight, Robert Jasiek). It is not an easy task though. Of course most people won't be a stickler over these things, but if you ask Csaba Mero I'm sure he'll tell you it's better if rules don't have flaws like this (he had a famous dispute with Robert under Ing rules).

I would not call this effect a "flaw". It's simply a consequence of the inner philosophy of Japanese rules.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

This position in the corner is a seki. But Black can gain 8 points before the end of the game.

This kind of "unbalance" cannot be helped.

One consequence of the inner philosophy of Chinese rules is the possibility to have points inside a seki (often also combined with some kind of "unbalance").

Indeed, I don't think the requirement to 'capture dead stones in seki' to get points for them is really a problem in Japanese rules. What is a downside (but not so bad I'd call it a flaw) is that if players aren't aware of that and have passed to finish the game then they can't go back and take the stone(s) to get the points once made aware they need to in order to get the points (DrStraw may know this already so would have captured the stones before passing in his game). Of course a kind player may break the rules and allow their opponent to do so, but AGA rules with their 'resume play to sort out problems' approach written into the rules is better IMO. What I would call a flaw is the fake seki Bill posted about, which I seem to recall the professional author of the J1989 rules himself admitted was an unintended bad consequence of how he had written those rules.

Uberdude wrote:What I would call a flaw is the fake seki Bill posted about, which I seem to recall the professional author of the J1989 rules himself admitted was an unintended bad consequence of how he had written those rules.

Ah, I see now what you meant.

Japanese rules have a strict "local" context, so the J89 rules creator(s) lost the "long-range weapon" ko out of sight. They simply did not consider that occupying dame of an independently alive group might create ko threats for the opponent that were not available before.

What is a downside (but not so bad I'd call it a flaw) is that if players aren't aware of that and have passed to finish the game then they can't go back and take the stone(s) to get the points once made aware they need to in order to get the points

I never let the rules minutiae get between me and a game so I may not have the right handle on what you are describing, but as I recall the latest Japanese rules you can resume the game after the pass suspension. The only impediment is that you have to let the opponent play first. But that is presumably not normally a problem in a seki.

Cassandra wrote:

DrStraw wrote:It is clearly seki regardless but under Japanese rules white will capture one stone, ...

If the position shown is the FINAL position of the game, then the result / score is jigo.

If White wanted to win the game, she should have captured Black's single stone earlier.

Black's single stone is not situated inside White's territory, as White does not have any territory. Therefore, this stone cannot be taken of the board after the end of the game to be counted as a prisoner.

No, but before scoring White can reopen play. Black can play first, but will pass. Then White captures the stone.

Bill Spight wrote:No, but before scoring White can reopen play. Black can play first, but will pass. Then White captures the stone.

This is a valid strategy for White, worth considering during the agreement procedure after the stop of the game.

However ...

Cassandra wrote:If the position shown is the   F I N A L   position of the game, ...

... nothing can be done after the end of the game

For really understanding the Japanese 1989 Rules, see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html

RobertJasiek wrote:For really understanding the Japanese 1989 Rules, see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html

TL;DR

Uberdude wrote:Otherwise known as strictly following the rules (and I thought you were a fellow pedant). If following the rules gives results that feel wrong to people who know how to play Go then there are problems with the rules, which is why many people have criticised and tried to improve upon the J1989 rules (e.g. Bill Spight, Robert Jasiek). It is not an easy task though. Of course most people won't be a stickler over these things, but if you ask Csaba Mero I'm sure he'll tell you it's better if rules don't have flaws like this (he had a famous dispute with Robert under Ing rules).

Fortunately this moment in Go rules history was preserved for prosperity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRdYQJqKls8

dust wrote: Fortunately this moment in Go rules history was preserved for prosperity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRdYQJqKls8

With a cameo by a young Ilya Shikshin.