Life In 19x19

Bots not playing perfectly is a (temporary) limitation. These rules problems otoh are not about computational complexity. There are only a few lines to read, well within the range of human analysis. What's missing is a logical system to draw correct conclusions. With two more variants where the unremovable threat is less useful:

[W also has few large removable threats elsewhere]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

In the 4th case W don't want to use the right (too big to lose), so bent4 just dies normally. The 3rd case is the only one where the central shared liberty comes into play. There W have to use (and lose) the right to keep the bent4 alive, otherwise he loses everything (including the right anyway). Central stones still safe in all cases.

Chinese rules can play out and score all these examples correctly. Also under informal territory rules, normal play cannot continue but hypothetical play can be discussed with honest opponent and score all four accurately as shown above (without B losing points on threat removal elsewhere). It is only current territory rules that can't do this formally.

jann wrote:Bots not playing perfectly is a (temporary) limitation. These rules problems otoh are not about computational complexity.

Why do you assess Igo Hatsuyôron 120 irrelevant for judging the performance of AI?

Why do you assess your artificially generated extremely impropable examplary positions relevant for judging the performance of rulesets?

I haven't said anything about Igo Hatsuyôron, and don't see what else can a ruleset judged on if not mishandled examples. And bent4+seki is not that rare.

Rarity is not really good argument anyway since disputes themselves are already very rare. So in practice territory by agreement is enough, without any confirmation or L/D rule. Many players don't even know how confirmation works in Japanese.

jann wrote:I haven't said anything about Igo Hatsuyôron, and don't see what else can a ruleset judged on if not mishandled examples. And bent4+seki is not that rare.

Rarity is not really good argument anyway since disputes themselves are already very rare. So in practice territory by agreement is enough, without any confirmation or L/D rule. Many players don't even know how confirmation works in Japanese.

You wrote something about "bots". Positions like Igo Hatsuyôron 120 are very rare, as are your artificially created positions.

Your examplary position is NOT bent-four & seki. What would be very rare in itself. But it is bent-four & sandwich-seki & seki. What is even much more implausible.

The many players who do not have any idea about J89's L&D confirmation will never ever realise that they have any "problematical" position on their board. Not to mention your artificially created positions with many unlikely components. Where is the problem then?

Therefore, why do you not discuss about realistic positions that could arise in professional play only? I.e. positions that J89 had been designed for?

Maybe because it is not the topic of the discussion.

Maybe because a sponsor who invests hundred of thousands in a tournament would prefer having secure rules.

Maybe because go is the only abstract combinatorial game that doesn't have a completely defined rule.

In one of my games, I had the choice between creating a common seki, or creating a quintuple sandwitched seki (black group vs white group vs black group vs white group vs black group). Unfortunately, I chose the former.

Pio2001 wrote:Maybe because a sponsor who invests hundred of thousands in a tournament would prefer having secure rules.

I agree with your other points but I doubt a sponsor would mind a juicy scandal / rule dispute in a tournament (for extra exposure).

Otherwise stress testing any system involves challenging conditions a bit different to everyday ones. Even in the bot example, the fact that we know (by experience) they don't play perfectly in complicated tsumego (and lightvector even trained a bit on them) shows those are valid and interesting tests of their limits.

For territory scoring some limits are obvious. Strings must be dead or alive as a whole. No combination of statuses could score 3-torazu correctly, thus it needs to be seki and played out in normal play for a small score drift.

But the above four examples are different. Any average player can discuss hypothetical play and score all four correctly - only the official rules can't.

Pio2001 wrote:Maybe because go is the only abstract combinatorial game that doesn't have a completely defined rule.

You are missing the point. Go would be a worse board game if it had such a rules.

jann wrote:But the above four examples are different. Any average player can discuss hypothetical play and score all four correctly - only the official rules can't.

Any amateur Kyu player with a solid knowledge of Igo Hatsuyôron 120's interdependencies can solve that tsume-go, correct play in subvariations included. No AI on this planet can.

The attitude that your artificially designed tsume-go for rulesets have in common is simply a destructive one.
As I have proven here, no one of your tsume-go for rulesets creators is able to solve the reverse tsume-go (show the last seven moves before that position) for the created positions, which makes evident that these to not have the slightest connection to the real world on the Go board.
You all are simply looking for a ruleset that "heals" a very special kind of simple obvious mistakes from "play" during the status confirmation.

You think that you have found a weakness and you use all your energy in search of a "suitable" position. But this weakness does NOT exist IN that ruleset, but only in your comparison of this rulesets with others. One of which YOU assess to be perfect.
But you do not want to play games under that seemingly "perfect" ruleset only.

AI is designed to play real games.
No software developer on this planet would make the requirements for successfully treating Igo Hatsuyôron 120 the foundation of their program.

CDavis7M wrote:

Pio2001 wrote:Maybe because go is the only abstract combinatorial game that doesn't have a completely defined rule.

You are missing the point. Go would be a worse board game if it had such a rules.

Chinese, AGA, New Zealand, French and British rules are completely defined. And it doesn't seem to me that they play a worse game.

Pio2001 wrote:Chinese ... rules are completely defined.

Hmm, including their triple ko draws?

I think they COULD be completely defined, but this would need some clarifications:

• a clear threefold repetition rule (draw/loss/win depending on stones lost in the loop)
• and clearly stating that superko applies in dispute phases only, after first resumption

I actually think AGA/NZ/etc. would also be better with such "Renaissance rules" approach, to become closer to the Chinese game.

Chinese, AGA, New Zealand, French and British rules are completely defined. And it doesn't seem to me that they play a worse game.

In practice, Chinese pros ignore their own rules and treat triple ko as a draw or replay, ignoring superko.

In practice, most Americans, French and Brits ignore their own official rules (which are really only there to avoid irritating and repetitive questions from beginners) and play what they call Japanese rules.

In practice, virtually nobody plays go in New Zealand.

And as for being completely defined, surely the whole tenor of Rules19 (the forum that replaced L19) is that they are not.

When I wrote that go was a game which rules were not completely defined (with Japanese rules in mind), I was not talking about superko, which is an easily solved problem. I was talking about the removal of "dead" stones.
What is a dead stone is very difficult to define.

John Fairbairn wrote:play what they call Japanese rules.

Which they also ignore;)

Pio2001 wrote:Chinese, AGA, New Zealand, French and British rules are completely defined.

The truth is: it is easy to completely define them by slight clarifications or (Chinese) simplification.

CDavis7M wrote:

Pio2001 wrote:Maybe because go is the only abstract combinatorial game that doesn't have a completely defined rule.

Go would be a worse board game if it had such a rules.

But... there are completely defined go rules (Olmsted, Berlekamp et al) - yet go is not any worse than before.