Life In 19x19

beginsA291 wrote: I admit to frustration with the game over this issue though. This otherwise excellent introduction http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/count.html where I got my example from, says “Thus black will not make such moves.” But there is no “thus” because they do the opposite of what you would think without the knowledge of the ending procedure of testing life and death. Many introductions are similar.

It was meant to be a simple toy example that put the issue I had into a nutshell. But it turned out a 5x2 area is enough to require analysis from you experts!
...

This thread has a lot of interesting discussion, but in my opinion, it has become more complicated than it needs to be*.

Let's go back to your original example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bm11
$$ ----------
$$ | . . O X C C |
$$ | . . O X W C |
$$ | . . O X C C |
$$ | . . O X C C |
$$ | . . O X C C |
$$ | . . O X C C |
$$ | . . O X C C |
$$ -----------[/go]

If both players pass, the game is over. The marked white stone is within the black area, as shown above, and it counts as black's points. That's because both players passed, which means the stones within the bordered off areas are dead.

If white doesn't pass, and makes something happen (eg. captures stones, etc.), then the game's not over.

That's the big picture.









*Maybe there are corner cases where it's useful to analyze these details, but let's get the big picture first.

beginsA291 wrote: I admit to frustration with the game over this issue though. This otherwise excellent introduction http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/count.html where I got my example from, says “Thus black will not make such moves.” But there is no “thus” because they do the opposite of what you would think without the knowledge of the ending procedure of testing life and death. Many introductions are similar.

I took a look at that page. It does contain an error:

"Your final score is your territory on the board, plus the captures you have removed from the board."

That should be this:

"Your final score is your territory on the board, plus the captures and dead stones you have removed from the board."

As for the moves that Black will not make, the example is a move inside White territory that White answers, so that the score remains unchanged. As I indicated, that statement is a bit of an overgeneralization. Sometimes such moves are played. But as a rule the players see no point in making such plays, and thus do not make them.

I suppose that the page could be improved by pointing out that after White answers the score remains the same, and saying that players do not make such plays because they are pointless.

John Fairbairn wrote:When I learned go I used Japanese rules. Not 1949 Japanese rules, not Japanese 1989 rules, not 2000 Japanese rules, not Japanese rules with a twist of lemon. It was just rules as used in Japan, which may have been fuzzy around the edges once in a blue moon, but I never saw a blue moon. I only ever encountered a very slight difficulty once, when a 2-dan opponent wasn't aware that bent four is dead. He accepted his loss graciously once other strong players convinced him that was the rule - no explanation , just "that is the rule." And games ended just as graciously with a gentleman's agreement - just as they usually do now in most clubs.

Nowadays, thanks to the rules mavens, in the very occasional games I play I have absolutely no idea whether bent four is dead, whether I have to pass, or whether points count in a seki, and this is not at all to do with the fact I usually don't know what day of the week it is. The mavens have created confusion. They have added nothing to the game. They have taken away much. Too many cooks have not just spoiled the broth; they have pissed in it.

I'm curious where you are having this experience. I play a lot, and I never really encounter the issue.

I play at our local go club twice a week, and everyone just plays by Japanese Rules as you describe them. No specific version, just what they learned when they started, and if any confusion arises they ask a stronger player (usually me). They may pass, but that is just a formality and it is also quite usual to say something along the lines of "well, that's about it, right?" and just quickly fill the dame and start counting.

I visit a tournament about once per month, and again my experience is similar. People are there to play and socialize, nobody cares about rules minutiae.

Even as a referee, which I also do regularly, I rarely see any disputes. Mostly I see questions about clocks. I refereed the Amsterdam tournament last week and I must've had a dozen questions about the byoyomi (which was displayed in a confusing way on the clock) but had zero questions about passing, bent four, seki, or any of that.

So in my experience, rules lawyering is just background noise which happens mostly on the internet, not in actual games. In most contexts that I play, people are quite aware of the implicit social contract, and anyone who is being anti-social on rules issues would at some point be ostracised.

I'm curious where you are having this experience. I play a lot, and I never really encounter the issue.

You have essentially answered your own question. You play a lot. I said I play "very occasional" games. I am therefore not properly attuned to what is going on.

But, as the GoGoD compiler, I do regularly see games played under Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Ing and western rules, including the various historical versions of these, and so I am aware that not only are various rulesets in use but various changes to each have also been made. That just adds to my confusion.

I am not the only one confused, however, As to the wider effect, although I don't play in tournaments now I have attended some, and what I see for example at the American Congress, which is supposed to be under AGA rules, is some people playing with AGA rules and people next to them playing Japanese rules. In European events long ago I have played Japanese rules when Ing rules were technically in force. Even where all players have attempted to play under Ing rules, there have been notorious cases where one person's interpretation has differed from another's.

I visit a tournament about once per month, and again my experience is similar. People are there to play and socialize, nobody cares about rules minutiae.

I think this is true everywhere. The problems occur because those who do care about the nitty-gritty seem to have a disproportionate effect.

So in my experience, rules lawyering is just background noise which happens mostly on the internet, not in actual games. In most contexts that I play, people are quite aware of the implicit social contract, and anyone who is being anti-social on rules issues would at some point be ostracised.

Again I agree. The only rider I would add is that lots of people now seem to get their notion of the rules from the angry airt of the internet and so they face the full blast of the rules mavens' storms. All the more reason to read books and seek the bield of a friendly club!

Those interested in perceiving rules disputes as kibitzes perceive them much more easily than those not interested in perceiving rules disputes.

In Europe, the number of rules disputes about the rules of play have decreased as a consequence of better written rules and (in particular my) rules commentaries in the internet. The number of rules disputes about tournament rules have been roughly constant, although specific types of disputes having now been clarified in the tournament rules have become rare. Other rules disputes about tournament rules have become more frequent because more "efficient" tournament organisation has become more popular and creates new unnecessary troubles such as incorrectly set clocks by the tournament organisers. Yes, time disputes are relatively frequent tournament rules disputes.

In my "first" club, long before I started studying rules, different rulesets were used: Japanese and sometimes Chinese. This caused a bent-4 dispute. Missing rules understanding and explanation meant that I (and probably everybody in my club) was unaware of the differences between full counting and half counting (only years later I understood why my Chinese opponents were impressed when I won by ca. 7 Chinese [half] counting points) and between territory scoring and area scoring (it was easy to overlook because we filled dame alternately and we kyus were too weak to count before the game end).

Therefore, it is not just everywhere that one group of players would have a uniform rules usage. This is not so much a matter of socialising but about impact of ideas.

Needless to say, all this was after ca. a decade of not understanding go because of territory scoring confusion (horrible explanation is a game set) following by my first teacher's (Jürgen Mattern) explanation that, when he travelled to tournaments in Asia, he had to know WAGC Rules and Ing Rules.

In Europe, the number of rules disputes about the
rules of play have decreased as a consequence of
better written rules and (in particular my) rules
commentaries in the internet.

I think you are missing a few quite important things. Firstly, the last revision of Japonese rules was 26 years ago. As far as I know, they have been used ever since the English translation was published as THE written ruled of Go in Europe (save the Ing rules episode and the few countries that have adopted the AGA rules). Secondly, I am pretty sure your commentaries have been read by very few players. Only a handful have ever read a commentary at all. Of those who have read at least one commentary, most have read only one, the commentary that is part of the English translation of J89. Thirdly, you have missed the effects of the internet. The rules being available online, forums to discuss them, and articles about disputes are all amongst the things that have severely effected the "dispute frequency". Plus the option of playing under different rules on servers has introduced the fact of multiple rulesets existing to many players.

tiger314, see my answer http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 95#p187995

RobertJasiek wrote:In Europe, the number of rules disputes about the rules of play have decreased as a consequence of better written rules and (in particular my) rules commentaries in the internet.

Citation required.

tiger314 wrote:.... Of those who have read at least one commentary, most have read only one, the commentary that is part of the English translation of J89. Thirdly, you have missed the effects of the internet. The rules being available online, forums to discuss them, and articles about disputes are all amongst the things that have severely effected the "dispute frequency" ....

Yes, this is my suspicion too. Not that disputes were particularly common in the UK anyway.

Bill Spight wrote:

beginsA291 wrote:3) It still seems a little fishy.

You don't know the half of it!

As you see.

Bill Spight wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

beginsA291 wrote:3) It still seems a little fishy.

You don't know the half of it!

As you see.

Well it is fascinating too Bill (and everyone). I was concerned I was making a meal of rule ambiguity and so on. But I'm not worried now!

The theoretical angle of the status of the rules is interesting to me, but on the practical level I'll not worry too much for now when playing (now that my original difficulty is cleared up). Although I suppose computer programs do in fact need to be "rules lawyers" and evaluate life/death in Japanese rules.

beginsA291 wrote:3) It still seems a little fishy.

Bill Spight wrote: You don't know the half of it!

beginsA291 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: As you see.

Well it is fascinating too Bill (and everyone). I was concerned I was making a meal of rule ambiguity and so on. But I'm not worried now!

Well, you have managed to round up the usual suspects, yours truly included.

The theoretical angle of the status of the rules is interesting to me, but on the practical level I'll not worry too much for now when playing (now that my original difficulty is cleared up). Although I suppose computer programs do in fact need to be "rules lawyers" and evaluate life/death in Japanese rules.

While as a practical matter, informal rules have sufficed throughout nearly all of go history, even at the highest levels, there are positions that are problematical, a number of which have never occurred in actual play. Most rules are designed with an eye to these rules beasts and how to handle them. We have been writing go rules for less than a century now, and I think that we will continue to revise them for a long time to come.

BTW, this thread inspired me to compose an easy problem for the Capture Game. You might find it interesting.

http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 11&t=11857

Bill Spight wrote: While as a practical matter, informal rules have sufficed throughout nearly all of go history, even at the highest levels, there are positions that are problematical, a number of which have never occurred in actual play. Most rules are designed with an eye to these rules beasts and how to handle them. We have been writing go rules for less than a century now, and I think that we will continue to revise them for a long time to come.

There are two possible alternatives:

-- Compose a ruleset wherein these "rules beasts" are handled as an integral "inner" part.
-- Compose a ruleset that handles these "rules beasts" as explicitely stated "exceptions".

The second alternative might have less implications on the "usual" player.

Cassandra wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: While as a practical matter, informal rules have sufficed throughout nearly all of go history, even at the highest levels, there are positions that are problematical, a number of which have never occurred in actual play. Most rules are designed with an eye to these rules beasts and how to handle them. We have been writing go rules for less than a century now, and I think that we will continue to revise them for a long time to come.

There are two possible alternatives:

-- Compose a ruleset wherein these "rules beasts" are handled as an integral "inner" part.
-- Compose a ruleset that handles these "rules beasts" as explicitely stated "exceptions".

The second alternative might have less implications on the "usual" player.

I think that the second alternative was tried in the Japanese 1949 rules. But their "illogicality" became an issue. The 1989 rules are logical but, IMHO, godawful.

Bill Spight wrote:The position if both players pass after move 12 is inherently problematical, because it is a hot position, one in which at least one player can gain from playing first. It is not a proper final position, and it does not have a proper score.

Hi, Bill,
Isn't it in contradiction with what you told me in the topic about the final ko ?

You said :

White to play can capture the stone, then Black must pass, which is her only ko threat in hypothetical play, and then White can fill the ko. Since the Black stone can be irrevocably captured in hypothetical play without giving rise to a new living Black stone, it is dead. The fact that Black to play could fill the ko and save the stone does not matter.

(emphasis is mine)

If we apply the same to the present position, shouldn't we say that "Black-to-play captures the stone", and the "The fact that White-to-play could lead to a seki does not matter" ?

I'm asking this because, thanks to your informations, I have corrected my article about the french and japanese rules, but now I'm not sure anymore that what I wrote is correct.

Pio2001 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:The position if both players pass after move 12 is inherently problematical, because it is a hot position, one in which at least one player can gain from playing first. It is not a proper final position, and it does not have a proper score.

Hi, Bill,
Isn't it in contradiction with what you told me in the topic about the final ko ?

You said :

White to play can capture the stone, then Black must pass, which is her only ko threat in hypothetical play, and then White can fill the ko. Since the Black stone can be irrevocably captured in hypothetical play without giving rise to a new living Black stone, it is dead. The fact that Black to play could fill the ko and save the stone does not matter.

(emphasis is mine)

If we apply the same to the present position, shouldn't we say that "Black-to-play captures the stone", and the "The fact that White-to-play could lead to a seki does not matter" ?

I'm asking this because, thanks to your informations, I have corrected my article about the french and japanese rules, but now I'm not sure anymore that what I wrote is correct.

You are correct. Under the Japanese 1989 rules the White stone is dead under the rules for hypothetical play. My point is that that result is arguable, and other rules might treat this position differently. And, in fact, under the Japanese 1989 rules it is possible that rule 13 applies, and both players lose.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Under hypothetical play Black to play can capture the White stones, so they are dead. However, this diagram is used in the official commentary to illustrate the both lose rule. There seems to be a contradiction or ambiguity in the Japanese rules. (However, "The White stones are dead and both players lose," is not a contradiction. )

Actually, I think that if such a position remained on the board at the end of a pro game, the both lose rule would be invoked, and both players would lose a whole lot of face.