Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:

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

very intresting. thank you.
can you ask Nam to send you the rule book in digit?
or better yet, can you send me her contact if possible?

for everyone's info:
ahn guanwook forfeited 5th game after winning 4 straight.
he didnt feel right after that incident and decided to forfeit.

Magicwand wrote:can you ask Nam to send you the rule book in digit?
or better yet, can you send me her contact if possible?

It is not like every professional would like to have personal contacts with everybody.

ahn guanwook forfeited 5th game after winning 4 straight.
he didnt feel right after that incident and decided to forfeit.

How did he do that? If it really was a reaction to the previous game, then that defies the purpose of the game, which starts a new mental competition afresh in each game. It would be a much greater pity than the apparently overlooked atari.

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

Thanks for that! I had looked for them a while back, but was unable to find them. I see there's a link as Sensei's now.

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

Well if there has been a recent change, I am not aware of it. I am not sure to which thread you are referring.

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.

First of all, I see the rule prohibiting suicide as totally irrational and arbitrary. Thus any ruleset that does not allow it I consider to be fatally flawed. As far as situational superkos are concerned, I understand that there are some difficulties in practice, but at least it allows the game to be resolved. I believe that a better system is possible, but until it is found, I think situational superko is the simplest and clearest way.

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).

I'm not sure on this one. My thinking was that Ing stone scoring would resolve the issue, since if both sides passed a white stone would be filled in the spot. I don't see how this resolves in the Chinese rules, at least the ones I'm aware of, unless the referee required white to fill after the game. If it remains unfilled, is there anything in the current Chinese rules that would consider it a point anyway?

Magicwand: I'm not sure if these are the complete rules, but here's a link to a Hanguk Kiweon rules page.

nagano wrote:First of all, I see the rule prohibiting suicide as totally irrational and arbitrary

Task: Define "play". This involves the task to handle liberty-less own strings in case of no removed opposing strings. Suicide or no suicide solve this task equally well. Therefore no suicide is not "totally irrational". Choosing either suicide or no suicide is close to being "arbitrary" though. Beyond the objectively necessary task, you can have whichever opinion you like but do not present it as if it were objective fact.

(BTW, as you can read elsewhere, I prefer suicide.)

As far as situational superkos are concerned, I understand that there are some difficulties in practice, but at least it allows the game to be resolved. I believe that a better system is possible, but until it is found, I think situational superko is the simplest and clearest way.

Positional superko is better, as explained elsewhere.

I'm not sure on this one.

Don't worry, I am:)

My thinking was that Ing stone scoring

Why do you care for Ing rules? They are a model of unclear game end procedure rules.

Situational superko cleanly disallows cycles, positional superko disallows a bunch of positions that aren't cycles. I don't see why one would even consider positional superko.

But this doesn't belong in this thread. Could an admin split the whole portion of the thread starting with the suggestion to switch the world to NZ rules?

RobertJasiek wrote:

nagano wrote:First of all, I see the rule prohibiting suicide as totally irrational and arbitrary

Task: Define "play". This involves the task to handle liberty-less own strings in case of no removed opposing strings. Suicide or no suicide solve this task equally well. Therefore no suicide is not "totally irrational". Choosing either suicide or no suicide is close to being "arbitrary" though. Beyond the objectively necessary task, you can have whichever opinion you like but do not present it as if it were objective fact.

(BTW, as you can read elsewhere, I prefer suicide.)

From what I've read of your arguments here and elsewhere, we view the concept of "ideal rules" differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your view seems to be that if a ruleset is logically self-consistent, that is enough, and from there it is up to the individual to decide which ruleset is best. My position is that any ruleset should be as simple as possible while accounting for all possible situations. So prohibiting suicide really is just an additional rule that is not needed. Worse, it decreases the number of possibilities in a game, and can even change the outcome of a close game. Perhaps my view of logic explained here will clear up what the differences are.

Positional superko is better, as explained elsewhere.

Ok, I'm open to the possibility, but can you be more specific about where? I've looked into the issue and I'm not convinced.

I'm not sure on this one.

Don't worry, I am:)

Then how is it resolved in Chinese rules? You seem to imply that the text of the Chinese rules is such that the point in question is considered a point for white. But depending on how a ruleset is written it might be considered a dame (though I do not agree with this judgement). Otherwise, why would there be a dispute in the first place?

My thinking was that Ing stone scoring

Why do you care for Ing rules? They are a model of unclear game end procedure rules.

I don't. I was simply saying that the requirement that white fill the point after the game removes any potential ambiguity.

palapiku wrote:Situational superko cleanly disallows cycles, positional superko disallows a bunch of positions that aren't cycles. I don't see why one would even consider positional superko.

For the advantages of PSK, see elsewhere; I have listed them at least a dozen of times.

Concerning your point, PSK, SSK, NSK each disallows cycles. Each does so in a different manner. "cleanly"? Define it and we can then check whether your definition lets SSK be the most fitting for the sake of your definition.

Of course, positions are not cycles.

PSK disallows PLAYS THAT WOULD RECREATE POSITIONS.

nagano wrote:From what I've read of your arguments here and elsewhere, we view the concept of "ideal rules" differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your view seems to be that if a ruleset is logically self-consistent, that is enough,

Depending on purposes, "ideal" may vary a bit but basically these criteria I consider necessary:
- describe Go and not some other game
- logical
- complete (nothing is undefined, applicable to all positions)
- understood easily
- easily applicable

My position is that any ruleset should be as simple as possible while accounting for all possible situations.

If you mean "situations" informally here, I agree; it is an implication from my criteria above.

So prohibiting suicide really is just an additional rule that is not needed.

EITHER prohibiting OR allowing suicide is REQUIRED as a rule (or implied rule concept equivalent).

Worse, it decreases the number of possibilities in a game

It is correct that it decreases the number. Whether it is good or bad is subject to opinion. E.g., also every ko rule decreases the number. Rather the interesting question is whether a particular kind of de/increasing the pure number does de- or increase the strategic decision complexity. And then again also appreciating that becomes subject to opinion.

and can even change the outcome of a close game.

Why is that a disadvantage? You can say the same about allowed suicide!

***

Since you want greater variation, you must prefer the Fixed-Ko-Rule over SSK;)

Ok, I'm open to the possibility, but can you be more specific about where?

Do some google for jasiek + PSK or jasiek + "positional superko / super-ko / super ko".

Then how is it resolved in Chinese rules?

I lost your context here; WHAT is to be resolved, please?

I don't. I was simply saying that the requirement that white fill the point after the game removes any potential ambiguity.

Problem is: Ing rulesets (all of them) are ambiguous about that requirement...

RobertJasiek wrote:Concerning your point, PSK, SSK, NSK each disallows cycles. Each does so in a different manner. "cleanly"? Define it and we can then check whether your definition lets SSK be the most fitting for the sake of your definition.

Of course, positions are not cycles.

PSK disallows PLAYS THAT WOULD RECREATE POSITIONS.

Let's define it.

First of all, the actual purpose of any superko rule is not to prevent cycles or recreation, it is to prevent non-termination. Cycles would not be an issue otherwise.

Now, the following statements are mathematically provable. I can prove them if you like but I don't see much ground for disagreement.

1. Any non-terminating game involves situational repetition.
2. Any situational repetition leads to a non-terminating game, provided that players act the same in the same situation (a reasonable real-world assumption, since the players believe they're making the best move in each situation).
3. Positional repetition doesn't necessarily lead to a non-terminating game, even with the previous assumption.

Because of 1, situational superko prevents non-termination. Because of 2, situational superko doesn't prevent anything else. This is what I mean by "cleanly" - the situation repeats if and only if the game is non-terminating.

Because of 3, positional superko disallows games that aren't non-terminating. This is not the intent of a superko rule. There's no need to disallow those games.

Magicwand wrote:for everyone's info:
ahn guanwook forfeited 5th game after winning 4 straight.
he didnt feel right after that incident and decided to forfeit.

Kin's site, http://igo-kisen.hp.infoseek.co.jp/ga.html (new location http://igokisen.web.fc2.com/ga.html) is not yet up-to-date
Did he forfeit the game verses Rui Naiwei then?

palapiku wrote:3. Positional repetition doesn't necessarily lead to a non-terminating game

You seem to assume
a) passes exist,
b) a maximal number of successive passes ending the game,
c) a next turn whenever the game end is not reached yet,
d) no ko rules are applied,
e) suicide is prohibited.

Example for your claim under these assumptions:

- The positional repetition sequence is at its end 1 pass short of ending the game.
- Each possible play for the player having the turn is suicide.
- Then the only possible play is the game ending pass.

Note that the assumptions are necessary...!

I'm not sure I understand... A position can repeat during "normal" play in the middle of a game, no passing or "zugzwang" involved, and not lead to a cycle. Passing, game end conditions, ko, and suicide are irrelevant to this fact. Do you disagree?

In fact, if suicide is allowed, you get the most simple (excluding passes) example of this: the suicide of one stone. It repeats the board position, so it would be prohibited by positional superko, but there's no reason why it would lead to non-termination, so there's no reason for it to be prohibited.

xed_over wrote:

Magicwand wrote:Did he forfeit the game verses Rui Naiwei then?

yes forfeited game is against Rui Naiwei

RobertJasiek wrote:
Depending on purposes, "ideal" may vary a bit but basically these criteria I consider necessary:
- describe Go and not some other game
- logical
- complete (nothing is undefined, applicable to all positions)
- understood easily
- easily applicable

The last two requirements are irrelevant, I think.

So prohibiting suicide really is just an additional rule that is not needed.

EITHER prohibiting OR allowing suicide is REQUIRED as a rule (or implied rule concept equivalent).

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but allowing suicide is not a separate rule if it is incorporated into the basic capture rule. This is the simplest solution, whereas an arbitrary rule has to be invented to prevent what otherwise would be a natural consequence of the capture rule.

Worse, it decreases the number of possibilities in a game

It is correct that it decreases the number. Whether it is good or bad is subject to opinion. E.g., also every ko rule decreases the number. Rather the interesting question is whether a particular kind of de/increasing the pure number does de- or increase the strategic decision complexity. And then again also appreciating that becomes subject to opinion.

I don't think its a question of opinion, if simplicity is the goal. One "rule" is a natural consequence of capture. The other is an artificial construction. It only makes sense to choose the simpler option, and not doing so is against the basic reasoning of Go in the first place.

and can even change the outcome of a close game.

Why is that a disadvantage? You can say the same about allowed suicide!

Refer to above. because I consider allowing suicide to be a component of basic essential rules, I consider a loss due to a rule against suicide to be an unfair result no less undesirable or unnatural than a drawn game due to a triple ko.

Since you want greater variation, you must prefer the Fixed-Ko-Rule over SSK;)

Actually I had not heard of it before, though I had thought of that option. But I think it has inherent problems as well, namely that it is arbitrary which side is considered the disturber. This rule is actually almost identical to Xiangqi's multiple check rule, which states that if either side plays eternal check they must stop after one cycle. Of course, this is basically meaningless seeing as a referee's adjudication is the final rule there as well.

Then how is it resolved in Chinese rules?

I lost your context here; WHAT is to be resolved, please?

The rules dispute that this topic was originally about.

nagano wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by this, but allowing suicide is not a separate rule if it is incorporated into the basic capture rule. This is the simplest solution, whereas an arbitrary rule has to be invented to prevent what otherwise would be a natural consequence of the capture rule.

There's a 125-post thread on suicide, in which you have posted so you must be aware of its existence, with plenty of arguments about why disallowing suicide is just as natural as allowing it. This really is an arbitrary decision.