Life In 19x19

palapiku wrote:move 279

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ | X . X X X O O X X X X . X X X X X X X |
$$ | X X O X X X X O X O X X X X X . X O O |
$$ | O X O X O O X O O O O X O X O X O . O |
$$ | O O O O O X X O O X O O O O O X O . O |
$$ | . . . O O O X X O X 1 O O X O X X O . |
$$ | . . O O O X X O O X X X X X O X O O O |
$$ | . . O . O X X X O X . X . . X X X O X |
$$ | . . . O 2 O O O O O X . X . . . X X X |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

279 (:b1:)is an atari that is true but after that white connects at 280 (:w2:)(at least that is in the game record)

willemien wrote:

palapiku wrote:move 279

$$Bc
$$ | X . X X X O O X X X X . X X X X X X X |
$$ | X X O X X X X O X O X X X X X . X O O |
$$ | O X O X O O X O O O O X O X O X O . O |
$$ | O O O O O X X O O X O O O O O X O . O |
$$ | . . . O O O X X O X 1 O O X O X X O . |
$$ | . . O O O X X O O X X X X X O X O O O |
$$ | . . O . O X X X O X . X . . X X X O X |
$$ | . . . O 2 O O O O O X . X . . . X X X |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ | X . X X X O O X X X X . X X X X X X X |
$$ | X X O X X X X O X O X X X X X . X O O |
$$ | O X O X O O X O O O O X O X O X O . O |
$$ | O O O O O X X O O X O O O O O X O . O |
$$ | . . . O O O X X O X 1 O O X O X X O . |
$$ | . . O O O X X O O X X X X X O X O O O |
$$ | . . O . O X X X O X . X . . X X X O X |
$$ | . . . O 2 O O O O O X . X . . . X X X |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

279 (:b1:)is an atari that is true but after that white connects at 280 (:w2:)(at least that is in the game record)

But it is not in the tape, if you look at the pictures closely.

nagano wrote:

willemien wrote:

palapiku wrote:move 279

$$Bc
$$ | X . X X X O O X X X X . X X X X X X X |
$$ | X X O X X X X O X O X X X X X . X O O |
$$ | O X O X O O X O O O O X O X O X O . O |
$$ | O O O O O X X O O X O O O O O X O . O |
$$ | . . . O O O X X O X 1 O O X O X X O . |
$$ | . . O O O X X O O X X X X X O X O O O |
$$ | . . O . O X X X O X . X . . X X X O X |
$$ | . . . O 2 O O O O O X . X . . . X X X |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ | X . X X X O O X X X X . X X X X X X X |
$$ | X X O X X X X O X O X X X X X . X O O |
$$ | O X O X O O X O O O O X O X O X O . O |
$$ | O O O O O X X O O X O O O O O X O . O |
$$ | . . . O O O X X O X 1 O O X O X X O . |
$$ | . . O O O X X O O X X X X X O X O O O |
$$ | . . O . O X X X O X . X . . X X X O X |
$$ | . . . O 2 O O O O O X . X . . . X X X |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

279 ( )is an atari that is true but after that white connects at 280 ( )(at least that is in the game record)

But it is not in the tape, if you look at the pictures closely.

Thanks the game record seems to be incorrect (in the screenshot W282 is allready played so where was W280 really played?


EDIT removed froudolous was indeed to strong. (and misspelled)

willemien wrote:Thanks the game record seems to be fraudulous (in the screenshot W282 is played so where was w28o really played?

I think "fraudulous" is too strong a word. The game record in this form is agreed upon by Cyberoro, Tygem, and weiqi.tom.com, so any error is probably the fault of the recorder.

What about M14? That's a false eye too? Not only that, but with the N19 tesuji another point would have to be filled by White.

Scoring without filling in all dame / false eyes is always risky because of stuff like this. Do we even know whether it was the N19 tesuji or the E1 point that was the cause of the scoring discrepancy?

I guess moral of the story is fill all the dame on the clock, or something ..

EDIT: I write this because the position in the original link did not match the end position in the .sgf posted by nagano, so it is unclear which of these points were filled in game and which in scoring.

topazg wrote:EDIT: I write this because the position in the original link did not match the end position in the .sgf posted by nagano, so it is unclear which of these points were filled in game and which in scoring.

the position in the original link is not the end position -- its only the position showing the atari in question.

the video screen shot appears to show the end position since it looks like she is removing dead stones -- and e1 (move w180) is unfilled.

all these happens because korean baduk club is not doing their job properly.
there is no set rule that defines the end of the game that covers all situations.
there were dispute few times before and after few years later they are still lacking correct written rule book and having same problem as before.
there is no translation in english because they dont have one for korean.

all they care about is about their monthly income to be secured.
i bet that korean baduk club will have same problem soon because they are too lazy and dumb.

Is it laziness or traditionalism?

Magicwand wrote:all these happens because korean baduk club is not doing their job properly.
there is no set rule that defines the end of the game that covers all situations.
there were dispute few times before and after few years later they are still lacking correct written rule book and having same problem as before.
there is no translation in english because they dont have one for korean.

all they care about is about their monthly income to be secured.
i bet that korean baduk club will have same problem soon because they are too lazy and dumb.

That's interesting. So I take it you mean that there are no official rules, and that all disputes must be arbitrarily resolved? Of course, Japan and China haven't fixed all the rules problems yet either. I think New Zealand rules should be adopted as the international standard until a superior alternative is developed. For Robert Jasiek: Is there any provision in any ruleset that deals with this specific issue (other than maybe Ing)?

RobertJasiek wrote:Is it laziness or traditionalism?

once you become a professional in korea you are guarantee some amount of money per month from the hankook kiwon.
it is like a government workers in US who dosent have to work but still get paid. so i guess it is not traditionalism.

all they are intrested is to keep that basepay from hankook kiwon. other issues are not as important as their pay.
i am thinking whole pay structure need to change but i dont think they will let go of their livelyhood easily.
they work really hard to keep paystructure as it is so i guess it is not laziness either.

Magicwand, at least the declared traditionalists among the Korean professionals responsible for rules (like Mrs. Nam) say that they want to keep the Korean game end rules [with their peculiarities] because they like that tradition, although they do not understand it fully themselves (see rec.games.go threads related to What is a Korean Ko Threat) and although they are aware of my rules theory on Japanese style territory scoring. They cannot justify their tradition by arguments other than "We like it.". In particular the so called Korean rules expert Nam wrote texts to justify them about which, after having read them 10 times to ensure not missing the intention, I have to say: No contents or flawed contents. Simply stating "We want to keep our flawed tradition no matter what others think, period!" would have come closer to the point.

nagano wrote:So I take it you [Magicwand] mean that there are no official rules,

As we know from the English translation of the Korean 1992 Rules, there are official rules. However, they have been changed in the meantime.

and that all disputes must be arbitrarily resolved?

Not all but in most cases that become interesting:) (1992 rules, cited roughly from memory: "In situations where the above rules are unclear, the KBA will adjudicate.")

Of course, Japan and China haven't fixed all the rules problems yet either.

Are you sure about China? See my thread about Chinese rules. Who has a translation of the CURRENT rules?

I think New Zealand rules should be adopted as the international standard until a superior alternative is developed.

Why exactly NZ rules? Why suicide? Why situational superko? Why tournament rules within the rules of play? It is not necessary to adopt precisely NZ Rules; no suicide, positional superko and no mixture with tournament rules are alternatives worth considering.

Is there any provision in any ruleset that deals with this specific issue (other than maybe Ing)?

Why? It does not require specific provisions. Just plain Area Scoring and clear game end rules suffice and available in various rulesets (but unfortunately mostly not in those rulesets currently used by associations or servers).

RobertJasiek wrote:Magicwand, at least the declared traditionalists among the Korean professionals responsible for rules (like Mrs. Nam) say that they want to keep the Korean game end rules [with their peculiarities] because they like that tradition, although they do not understand it fully themselves (see rec.games.go threads related to What is a Korean Ko Threat) and although they are aware of my rules theory on Japanese style territory scoring. They cannot justify their tradition by arguments other than "We like it.". In particular the so called Korean rules expert Nam wrote texts to justify them about which, after having read them 10 times to ensure not missing the intention, I have to say: No contents or flawed contents. Simply stating "We want to keep our flawed tradition no matter what others think, period!" would have come closer to the point.

Nam chi-young said that? is she being sinical? i am sure her english is good enough to avoid any misinterperation so i can not understand why she would say such comments.

there are korean rule but it is so basic...it will not resolve many peculiar situations.
it only cover basic rule that 18 kyu already know.
it also covers few shapes that dan players might not know the result of.
other than that it is pretty much useless in my opinion.

actually korean rule is 100% same as japanese rule in my opinion.
rule book should be able to resolve all conflict but currently it is not doing its job.
i am sure they made this ruling to match preceding conflict with chinese player.
i am thinking if it wasnt for that previous ruling they would have gave differnet ruling on this.

Magicwand wrote:Nam chi-young said that?

She, yes. She used long text; the shorthand summaries are from me.

actually korean rule is 100% same as japanese rule in my opinion.

No. See http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/difference_ ... rules.html

nagano wrote:
That's interesting. So I take it you mean that there are no official rules, and that all disputes must be arbitrarily resolved? Of course, Japan and China haven't fixed all the rules problems yet either. I think New Zealand rules should be adopted as the international standard until a superior alternative is developed. For Robert Jasiek: Is there any provision in any ruleset that deals with this specific issue (other than maybe Ing)?

How about the [sl=IkedaRukles]Ikeda Rules[/sl] (Area rules III)
or [sl=TwoButtonGo]Two Button Go[/sl]