Life In 19x19

Gérard, concerning life-and-death example 4 ...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Status assessment for White's stones.

##########################

The following sequence is given in the current Japanese original of J89 as the proof for declaring White's stones alive.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X X O . 3 . O X . .
$$ | X X O O O O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | 4 O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X X O 7 X 5 O X . .
$$ | X X O O O O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | O O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | 6 O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Would you agree that their own rules were not really understood?

Cassandra wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:To assure this property common japonese rules conclude often to a seki where you conclude to "two-eyed alive" and territory. That means that you lost this consistency between territories which is a pity for me.

I am sorry, Gérard, but I really do not have any idea of what you intended to say.
If you like to re-arrange the position of the two eye-points of a group (if technically possible), please do so. Nothing outside a "two-eyed alive" group (a Black one in your example) will be affected by anything inside. And vice versa.

The only single example that I know of, where J89 has a seki, but the application of the "two-eyed alive" idea has not, is life-and-death example 4.
However, I see this as absolutely irrelevant. I hope to have made clear, why.

Contrary to a potential hidden rule for achieving the intended results of examples 16 to 18 (which lack the derivation of the intended results), I am unable to imagine which hidden rule (please remember the interdependency with example 1) should lead us to the intended result of example 4, while having absolutely no side-effects on other positions.

#############################

By the way, as far as I can remember, we have not discussed "seki" in general yet.

OK Cassandra let's take an example you know very well:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

You prove yourself that white is able to prove her white marked group is "two-eyed alive" (see viewtopic.php?p=266583#p266583)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

If I understand correctly your proposal that means that the four marked points above are territory for white and white gains 7 points in this part of the board.
If it is territory I expect this territory is completly independant of the rest of the board even if I rearrange this territory for example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Now you can see that, if you analyse the board with this arrangement, all white stones on the board becomes "two-eyed alive" where no black stone group is "two-eyed alive" => all the board is white territory.

OC you can say that I am not allowed to proceed like this and I can agree with you because it is not the point. I only say it is a pity to lose this remarkable property of territories which exists in all (?) the current territory rules. Nothing else, simply a pity Cassandra.

Cassandra wrote:Gérard, concerning life-and-death example 4 ...

$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X . . X X X Q X . .
$$ | X X Q Q Q Q Q Q X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | . O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Status assessment for White's stones.

##########################

The following sequence is given in the current Japanese original of J89 as the proof for declaring White's stones alive.

$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X 1 2 X X X O X . .
$$ | X X O O O O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | . O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X X O . 3 . O X . .
$$ | X X O O O O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | 4 O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X X O . 3 . O X . .
$$ | X X O O O O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | 4 O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X X O 7 X 5 O X . .
$$ | X X O O O O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | O O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | 6 O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X X O 7 X 5 O X . .
$$ | X X O O O O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | O O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | 6 O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Would you agree that their own rules were not really understood?

Yes Cassandra I will never disagree with you the fact that J89 is unclear and difficult to understand
J2003 is far better indeed.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Yes Cassandra I will never disagree with you the fact that J89 is unclear and difficult to understand
J2003 is far better indeed.

I am very sure that you know that this was NOT the question.

It is not surprising that it will run into problems, if you use a J89 life-and-death example for the judgement of other rulesets that is dramatically flawed in itself.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:OC you can say that I am not allowed to proceed like this and I can agree with you because it is not the point. I only say it is a pity to lose this remarkable property of territories which exists in all (?) the current territory rules. Nothing else, simply a pity Cassandra.

Oh, I am fine with the fact that a feature that might help simplifying the status assessment in the "uncapturable" world, does not exist under "two-eyed alive", if applied without thinking.

You must not mix both worlds together. There is a very decisive fundamental difference, which we haven't revealed yet.

It you ever wanted to use this feature in the "two-eyed alive" world, you are forbidden to rearrange the eye space of a "two-eyed alive" group that has DAME.
Simple solution, isn't it

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

$$B
$$ -----------------
$$ | W . X . X . O |
$$ | W . X X X O O |
$$ | W W X O O O O |
$$ | X W X O O O O |
$$ | X W X O O . O |
$$ | X W X O X X O |
$$ | . W X O X X O |
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

You prove yourself that white is able to prove her white marked group is "two-eyed alive" (see viewtopic.php?p=266583#p266583)

I am fine with "unexpected" special effects on small boards, which are quite unlikely to be seen on a 19x19 board.

This is because the impact of the deciding fundamental difference between the "uncapturable" and the "two-eyed alive" worlds becomes the larger the smaller the board is.


I do not yet have a complete, ready-made framework for a set of "two-eyed alive" rules. That's why I'm still extremely flexible.
Some days earlier, I would have never dreamed of something like "J89 ko-bans must be lifted in order" or "cycles with (2 + 2n) moves are forbidden during status confirmation".

I think that a quick and dirty solution for your problem could be something like:
-- A "two-eyed alive" group that is neighboured to an opponent's "seki-alive" group does not contain any territory, if both groups share DAME. Opponent's "dead" stones inside must not be taken off the board as prisoners.

Just allow territory in sekis: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html

RobertJasiek wrote:Just allow territory in sekis: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html

Dear Robert, this would not comply with Japanese tradition, would it?

However, I would not exclude this option per se, as "two-eyed alive" will result in special differences to the "uncapturable" world of e.g. J89 anyway. In positions, which are much more relevant than J89's example 4.

It leads us to the (here in this thread still to be discussed) question, what we (want to) understand by
"Having SOVEREIGNTY over an enclosed (and empty) part of the board."

The decision, whether we want to allow territory in seki, or not, is a direct consequence of that.
And it is independent of the ruleset used, because "identifying territory" (respective "... area") is only the second step, after all the work of determining the life-and-death status of all groups has been completed.


Now that you have opened this Pandora's box, we may want to remember that "Capturing stones" is NOT the aim of the game of Go.
Rather, the aim of the game of Go is to exercise sovereignty over a (n empty) part of the board.

"Uncapturable" is oriented towards "capturing stones", "two-eyed alive" is oriented towards "exercising sovereignty".

Cassandra wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Yes Cassandra I will never disagree with you the fact that J89 is unclear and difficult to understand
J2003 is far better indeed.

I am very sure that you know that this was NOT the question.

It is not surprising that it will run into problems, if you use a J89 life-and-death example for the judgement of other rulesets that is dramatically flawed in itself.

Sorry Cassandra I think I did undersant your question (maybe to my bad english but I do my best)
Let me try again but I am not sure I am answering your question:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Surely J89 is not quite clear but J2003 is fine. All the corner is in seki and, as far as I am concerned I like this result. As a consequence it would have been better for black to not pass and to kill one of the white groups in normal play.

Cassandra wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

$$B
$$ -----------------
$$ | W . X . X . O |
$$ | W . X X X O O |
$$ | W W X O O O O |
$$ | X W X O O O O |
$$ | X W X O O . O |
$$ | X W X O X X O |
$$ | . W X O X X O |
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

You prove yourself that white is able to prove her white marked group is "two-eyed alive" (see viewtopic.php?p=266583#p266583)

I am fine with "unexpected" special effects on small boards, which are quite unlikely to be seen on a 19x19 board.

BTW the original position given by the author is the following:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Yes of course it is quite unlikely that such position appears in a real game.

RobertJasiek wrote:Just allow territory in sekis: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html

In addition Cassandra you can look at the following very interesting article written by Robert M. Pauli : http://ljrg.eu5.net

Gérard TAILLE wrote:BTW the original position given by the author is the following:

$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O X X X . X X X X X . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O O O O X X O O O X X . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O X X O O X O . O O X . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O . X X X O O X X O X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . X . X . O X X O X . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Yes of course it is quite unlikely that such position appears in a real game.

Please don't worry.

Was just a tiny test for you

I knew that the transposition onto a 19x19-board was possible.
There are four other ones available...

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Sorry Cassandra I think I did undersant your question

Probably it will become clearer with splitting the sequence in the third diagram of J89's "proof":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X X O . X X O X . .
$$ | X X O O O O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | O O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | 6 O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

makes White's group at the left "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . X X O 7 X X O X . .
$$ | X X O O O O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X X X X X X . .
$$ | O O X , . . . . . , .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | O O X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

is the FINAL move of J89's "proof".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Something has just been captured at the marked points at the top.
But the story does NOT continue.

Capturing White's stones at the top "enabled" NOTHING.
Therefore, White's stones at the top have been status confirmed "dead", not "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Quite apparently, (was ) has been mistakenly seen as the "new" move that cannot be captured.
However, this move was played much too early to be counted.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:In addition Cassandra you can look at the following very interesting article written by Robert M. Pauli : http://ljrg.eu5.net

Very interesting approach, especially the idea of "removing a disturbing cycle".

But too long to be analysed in total now
Especially did not reach the status confirmation section ...


Nevertheless, just a quick and dirty comment on "removing a disturbing cycle".
If I understood this concept, and its conditions, right in a hurry, this rule -- as it is -- would result in a different game.

It can be easily overlooked that cycles with a length of 2n moves (n = 1, 2, 3, ...) have completely different properties than cyles with a length of (2 + 2m) moves (m = 0, 1, 2, ...).

As far as I can see now, "removing a disturbing cycle" should be restricted to the latter ones (don't know whether "m = 0" -- i.e. basic ko -- would be a special case here that had to be excluded -- and so be left with the basic ko rule alone).

Let me discuss the Simplified Japanese Rules.

They do not agree to tradition for all positions for especially these reasons:
1) Life status is determined globally instead of mostly locally.
2) Life status is determined by skill instead of perfect play.
3) Sekis have territory instead of no territory.
4) Superko is used instead of basic ko and no result ko rules.
5) There are no instead of some exceptional rules for rare exceptional shapes.

In my opinion, (1) and (2) are good because go is a game of global play and skill.

On servers, players accept territory in sekis the most easily. Therefore, there is no need to let Japanese professionals dictate the opposite as an exception. Amateur players using Japanese style rules in real world games do not have a strong preference for this tradition.

I have chosen superko for the sake of simple rules design but it is not necessary to impose superko on Japanese style rules. Other ko rules can be used. Basic ko and no result ko rules can be used but require additional clarification or ko rules for life status "confirmation". E.g.: "Each pass enables basic ko capture. Long cycles are interpreted as follows: [...]"

Ordinary shapes, such as bent-4-in-the-corner and other hidden kos, do not need exceptional rules. Mostly, exceptional rules are relevant only for triple kos and similar rarities. Exceptional rules for rare exceptional shapes are not needed because one may tolerate the impact of ordinary rules on them. Mostly (especially Japanese and Korean) professional players want to maintain what they call tradition in the form of specific outcomes of some specific rare exceptional shapes. If they had studied all possible rare exceptional shapes, they would be forced to reflect their related inconsistent tradition, except that they rather stick their nose into the sand rather than admit inconsistency.