Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:In this context, I have not called a single game a tounament. (I did, however, play in subtournaments comprising one game.)

Have you still not got it?

The Nihon Kiin 1989 Rules are about ONE game of Go only!

RobertJasiek wrote:In this context, I have not called a single game a tounament. (I did, however, play in subtournaments comprising one game.)

Applicability to all positions is a necessity. Studying eccentric positions is a joy.

Western rule freaks ...

I use verbal rules in my own games and so do most other players, I suppose.
So the ambiguity of the definition of life and death in the official 1989 rules has never affected any of my games.

But it cannot be denied that verbal rules don't fully match the official rules.

These positions are indeed unrealistic. But that is besides the point.
I think it's good that such anomalies are pointed out and potential fixes in the offical rules are explored, even though it's unlikely to affect my games.

I don't believe that rules specialists aim to use their special knowledge to win tournament games with some obscure exploit of a rule anomaly.

@Cassandra
These topics are discussed in the "Go Rules" subforum, which is a natural place for rules enthousiasts to discuss these matters.
Why do you feel the need to repeatedly insult them here by calling them "rule freaks"?

gennan wrote:I use verbal rules in my own games and so do most other players, I suppose.
So the ambiguity of the definition of life and death in the official 1989 rules has never affected any of my games.

Of course it has

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c F6 is alive
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . X . . X O . . . |
$$ | X . X X X O . O . |
$$ | X X . . X O . . . |
$$ | O O X X . X O O O |
$$ | . O O X O O X X O |
$$ | . O X X X X X . X |
$$ | . O X O O O X . . |
$$ | . . O O . O O X . |
$$ | . . . . . O X X . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

Here, the F6 black stone has no eye, is not in seki, and can obviously be captured. However it is alive. And it is very important, under japanese rules, that Black doesn't have to capture the two white stones in order to prove it, because he would loose one point.

gennan wrote:These positions are indeed unrealistic. ...
I think it's good that such anomalies are pointed out and potential fixes in the offical rules are explored, ...

Do you really assume that discussions like that here, or the pretended "anomalies" found by some Western rule freaks, get an official hearing in East-Asia?

These "anomalies" exist in an artificially created surrounding only.

You will never ever encounter these in the realm of real life for which the official rules were written. Why should anyone see a need for action?
Just because a few people in the West play plaintiff and judge in one person?
Have you ever heard of a rules dispute in professional Japanese Go since 1989?

There have been rules disputes in professional Japanese Go since 1989. In particular, a consequence is that alternate filling of dame has been used more. You need not cite anomalies to have relevant rules implications in EACH game.

Do you like quite strange sequence ?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black plays and avoids losing all the coner
$$ -------------------------------
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X . . X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X . . X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O O . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X . O . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X . O . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X . O . .
$$ | O O O O O O O O O O O O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$[/go]

RobertJasiek wrote:There have been rules disputes in professional Japanese Go since 1989. In particular, a consequence is that alternate filling of dame has been used more. You need not cite anomalies to have relevant rules implications in EACH game.

Do you want to say that a rules "dispute" arose just because both players did not follow the binding ones?

Or one player was mindedly absent before saying "I pass"?

Unfortunately, I have forgotten the details and would need to dig more deeply in my files than I have time ATM.

RobertJasiek wrote:Unfortunately, I have forgotten the details and would need to dig more deeply in my files than I have time ATM.

So let us assume that the supposed "dispute" could be resolved within the ruleset in force.

Otherwise, there would have been a "Rev. 1", either for the rules, or for the commentaries. But there is none.

Japanese rules tradition went from pre-1949 (or possibly earlier) "leave dame etc. unplayed by all means" via "fix" J1949 by J1989 to noticing what J1989 actually means so "play the dame to guarantee territory". A less dubious process would have been to maintain professional attitude: learn from one's mistake, admit that the J1989 dame definition was a conceptual mistake with originally unintended consequences and overcome the mistake.

Sorry, no further discussion of disputes you suspect, as long as you are unable to bring along qualified details.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Do you like quite strange sequence ?

Nice !

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Thank you for the link Bill. It allows me to give you a more convincing position:

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

If white stones are dead then the black score is (17 * 17 * 2) + 5 = 583 points
Assuming now that 582 black stones have been captured, and assuming a komi 0.5, then the result is a black win by 0.5 points.
That means that black must avoid to capture at "a" because she will loose one point and the game (white will simply pass without trying to live)
Both players agree to stop the game and now the confirmation phase begin. The problem is now the following : nobody knows the god sequence saying if white stones are really dead under hypothetical play. The result of the game is simply unkonwn because the humans are not strong enough! BTW I doubt the current computers are able to give us the correct result.

I don't want to make any excuses for the "Japanese go rules".
Because it randomly modified the rules of the Tang and Song Dynasties,
Under Tang song rules, the number of moves of black and white sides should be equal, without "pass".

Let's look:
Black's moves: 582(prisoners) + 17*4(on board + "a") = 650
White's moves: 17*17=289

And, according to ancient Chinese Weiqi rules, basic liberties which make groups alive forever are not territory.
If one party can not put down stones on the board, 'pass' is prohibitted. 'overflow', then 'overflow of two parties'. See my articles.
overflow: hand over 1 stone to your opponent directly From above the board. It's like water overflowing from a bottle.


Special case: group/stone(s) which only 1 liberty will alive on the board.
If you killed these group/stone(s), you will lost more. then(please see comments in sgf file):


In ancient Chinese philosophy, Alternating between Yin and Yang is called Tao. Chinese: 一阴一阳之谓道。

Why are people pretending that the Japanese Rules do not clearly handle these situations? The Japanese Rules are simple. Stones are only "alive stones" if they cannot be captured or, even if they can be, new stones can be placed that cannot be captured. Stones are "dead stones" if they are not "alive stones." The Japanese Rules place the burden on showing life. There is no burden to show death -- it is the default status of stones. All stones are dead if they are not alive. The Japanese Rules define numerous basic shapes as being alive or dead, none of which cover the situations here. If a player cannot prove that stones are alive (this was the given assumption in the original post), then the stones are dead stones.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:What is the problem. Nobody knows if black can live in the upper left corner (after white makes the capture) and more over nobody knows if black can live under hypothetical play!
Maybe we can conclude to a no result by ignorance (and not due to a explicit loop) ?

Well then clearly the black stones are dead stones according to the Japanese Rules. The Japanese Rules do not define the black shape as being a living shape and black cannot show in Life & Death confirmation that any new stones are stones that cannot be captured. Since Black cannot meet the burden of showing life, then the black stones are dead. Black can resume the game but that does not help Black here. There is no requirement for white to play to show that the black stones are dead.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:If white stones are dead then the black score is (17 * 17 * 2) + 5 = 583 points
Assuming now that 582 black stones have been captured, and assuming a komi 0.5, then the result is a black win by 0.5 points.
That means that black must avoid to capture at "a" because she will loose one point and the game (white will simply pass without trying to live)
Both players agree to stop the game and now the confirmation phase begin. The problem is now the following : nobody knows the god sequence saying if white stones are really dead under hypothetical play. The result of the game is simply unknown because the humans are not strong enough! BTW I doubt the current computers are able to give us the correct result.

Again, Black does not need to prove that the white stones are dead. The white stones are dead by definition.
----------
If there were a situation where the stones were defined as dead, but the player thought they they could live if their opponent's play were not perfect, then the player can resume the game. If it is too late for them to play anywhere to make life then it is too late.
----------
Also, I don't believe that a data scientist (a real one) would not be able to implement a determination of life or death status under the Japanese Rules using AI self-play. If the position cannot be shown to be 100% alive according to AI self-play, then the shape is dead.