Life In 19x19

The post that revived the thread?

After both players have agreed on the end of the game,


Black's "independently alive" groups surround
-- B_t board points, from which
++ B_e board points are empty, and
++ B_o are occupied by "dead" White stones.
B_t = B_e + B_o.
Black has B_p prisoners.

Black's score on the board is
B_t + B_o + B_p.

B_t is Black's "territory", as initially defined by J89 in Article 8.
This is the NUMBER of all SURROUNDED BOARD POINTS, and therefore independent of whether these points are empty or occupied by "dead" White stones. Strikingly spoken, it is what has been surrounded on the NAKED board.
This is NOT what appears to be the "empty" portion of what has been surrounded!!!
This is NOT the total amount / value of what has been surrounded!!!
B_t is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of B_o!


White's "independently alive" groups surround
-- W_t board points, from which
++ W_e board points are empty, and
++ W_o are occupied by "dead" Black stones.
W_t = W_e + W_o.
White has W_p prisoners.

White's score on the board is
W_t + W_o + W_p.

W_t is White's "territory", as initially defined by J89 in Article 8.


Black is ahead on the board by
B_t + B_o + B_p - (W_t + W_o + W_p) =
B_t + B_o + B_p - W_t - W_o - W_p =
B_t - W_o - W_p - W_t + B_o + B_p =
B_t - W_o - W_p - (W_t - B_o - B_p) =
B_t4s - W_t4s

W_o - W_p is the number of Black stones that are filled into Black's territory (according to Article 8), according to Article 10, Clause 2, first half-sentence.
B_o - B_p is the number of White stones that are filled into White's territory (according to Article 8), according to Article 10, Clause 2, first half-sentence..

As a matter of course, Black's and White's territories (according to Article 8) do not exist any longer after this procedure.

B_t4s is the RESULTING Black territory, according to Article 10, Clause 2, second half-sentence.
W_t4s is the RESULTING White territory, according to Article 10, Clause 2, second half-sentence.
The initial definition of "territory" in Article 8 no longer applies. The procedure in Article 10, Clause 2, is only a means to simplify scoring.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Territory is ALWAYS the NAKED board portion of what has been surrounded by (with regard to Article 10: occasionally earlier) "independently alive" groups.

This is just a pissing contest in which, at each stage, one or both of the discussants may show lack of knowledge of Japanese, and sometimes also of English. A further problem is that the best known (only?) English translation, which one or both discussants frequently may appeal to, has several unsatisfactory features.*

Under such conditions, agreement is never going to happen: there will be no confirmation phase.

The text they are wrangling over clearly matters to some people. I happen to find it very boring, but it is quite short. I suggest therefore that we could start a thread that has as its aim the production of a translation into English, clause by clause, that all parties can agree to.

I am willing to start the ball rolling for each clause. We need first to think of a satisfactory way to agree on how we eventually agree, and I would also lay down some pre-conditions: that the defining text remains the Japanese original AND the Japanese way of thinking about it, and that the aim is to produce a translation (not an interpretation) that is as close to the Japanese as is practicable and demonstrably so.

Your thoughts?

*As examples of what I mean:

1. Article 3 of the existing translation refers to "an unoccupied intersection (called an empty point)." Several points here. The word 'intersection' is used for 点. Previously, in the very same article 交点 is used and also translated as 'intersection'. It is generally a principle of translation of legal texts that you use the same word in one language for the equivalent word in the other. The Japanese word used for 'empty point' is 空き点. In Article 4, when this word occurs, the translator puts "empty point, called a liberty". The portion underlined by me does not appear in the Japanese. The earlier phrase "called an empty point" in Article 3 does not match the Japanese, which is 以下「空き点」という, i.e. "hereinafter called an empty point" ('hereinafter' as opposed to 'commonly' or some such). I regard these changes by the translator as unnecessary, and apparently problematical for some people.

2. Article 8 refers to 'eye points' and 'dame'. First there is no reference to go eyes anywhere in the Japanese of Article 8. Adding such a loaded word is asking for trouble. Furthermore, the use of 'eye points' and 'dame' loses the nice juxtaposition of the Japanese 'me' and 'dame'. This can be kept in English. (I suggest 'scoring points' and 'non-scoring points', but agreeing on the precise choice is what I'd see the thread being about).

John Fairbairn wrote:The text they are wrangling over clearly matters to some people. I happen to find it very boring, but it is quite short. I suggest therefore that we could start a thread that has as its aim the production of a translation into English, clause by clause, that all parties can agree to.

I am willing to start the ball rolling for each clause. We need first to think of a satisfactory way to agree on how we eventually agree, and I would also lay down some pre-conditions: that the defining text remains the Japanese original AND the Japanese way of thinking about it, and that the aim is to produce a translation (not an interpretation) that is as close to the Japanese as is practicable and demonstrably so.

Your thoughts?

Excellent proposal.

It should have become evident that no one so far in the West has really translated / studied the apparently UPDATED version of J89.
And that what J89 intends is much better than its previous reputation.

However, the original (even the current) Japanese text -- as well as James Davies' English translation of the initial one -- is full of ambiguities, which is the main obstacle for a "reaonable" application.
One recent example was the usage of "地" -- "territory" -- with TWO different meanings in only ONE sentence of Article 10.
"空点" -- "empty points" -- in Article 8 is another one, obviously meaning something else than what first comes to mind.

Just to get rid of these ambiguities would be worth the effort.

I don't see any ambiguities, but let's look at the text collectively first before making provocative assertions. And I do hope we won't have arguments about extraneous words like "reasonable" (!= rational).

But that's by the by at present. The main reason for replying is to say that I am not aware of an updated J989 text. I am not saying it doesn't exist. I may even have it somewhere, in stuff I don't bother to read. But we would need to start with an agreed Japanese text. So where is it, and what force does it have?

Also might I suggest, if there is an illustrative example, we stick with THAT example and not switch to one which is claimed to be equivalent. Whether or not equivalent might be exactly what is in question.

John Fairbairn wrote:But that's by the by at present. The main reason for replying is to say that I am not aware of an updated J989 text. I am not saying it doesn't exist. I may even have it somewhere, in stuff I don't bother to read. But we would need to start with an agreed Japanese text. So where is it, and what force does it have?

https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/match/kiyaku/zenbun.html

displays J1989 on the official Nihon Kiin website. I am sure that we can easily agree on this text.


-------------------------------------------------
BTW: Why "updated", compared to James Davies's translation?

In my opinion, several fractions of the current Japanese text do NOT match that translation. Or the other way round.
Most striking is the replacement of L&D Example 18.


But whether or not is not that decisive, as the Nihon Kiin of course is allowed to adjust identified inconsistency without pressing the alarm button.

Cassandra wrote:Sorry, but this diagram is from the commentary
第十条－１（勝敗の決定）
which refers to "Determining the result"
NOT from the commentary
第八条（地）
which refers to "Territory". At this page you will NOT find any dead stone.
Nice try of wishful thinking.
However, those who are able to read have the advantage!

You can't be unspecific in your original post and then pretend that you outwitted me. You said:

Cassandra wrote:the examples utilised in the commentary for explaining "territory" do NOT include opponent's dead stones!

While 第十条－１ is not titled "地" it still has "commentary for explaining territory" as shown in the image I posted. That commentary explaining territory also discusses dead stones. Furthermore, that commentary shows that your interpretation is wrong.

John Fairbairn wrote:This is just a pissing contest in which, at each stage, one or both of the discussants may show lack of knowledge of Japanese, and sometimes also of English. A further problem is that the best known (only?) English translation, which one or both discussants frequently may appeal to, has several unsatisfactory features.*

I'm not trying to claim that I have knowledge of Japanese. Just to be clear, I'm also not arguing that my interpretation is the is the usual reading of the Japanese text. I'm only arguing that my interpretation is one of many plausible interpretations. Because this interpretation is consistent with the examples provided with the Japanese Rules, then it must be the correct interpretation. Other plausible interpretations that find inconsistencies in the terms "dame," "territory," etc. must not be correct.

My issue is that some people have taken translations of the Japanese Rules, misinterpreted them, decided not to bother looking at the source, and then run wild with accusations that the Japanese Rules are inconsistent, pretending that a flood of diagrams and math equations make more sense.

John Fairbairn wrote:I suggest therefore that we could start a thread that has as its aim the production of a translation into English, clause by clause, that all parties can agree to. I am willing to start the ball rolling for each clause. We need first to think of a satisfactory way to agree on how we eventually agree, and I would also lay down some pre-conditions: that the defining text remains the Japanese original AND the Japanese way of thinking about it, and that the aim is to produce a translation (not an interpretation) that is as close to the Japanese as is practicable and demonstrably so. Your thoughts?

Are we not going to agree that the correct interpretations of the text are the ones that are consistent with the corresponding diagrams? If so, maybe there's no need to waste anyone's time because we can already understand what the text means from the diagrams.

John Fairbairn wrote:...I regard these changes by the translator as unnecessary, and apparently problematical for some people...(I suggest 'scoring points' and 'non-scoring points', but agreeing on the precise choice is what I'd see the thread being about).

If you are going to bother, I suggest only looking at the articles that people seem to find inconsistent and I wouldn't bother trying to translate Go terms and especially not ones in 「 」 marks.

====================

Alleged inconsistencies in the Japanese Rules:

1. Referring to the statement 一方のみの活き石で囲んだ空点を「目」といい、目以外の空点を「駄目」という in 第八条（地), some people (e.g., https://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html) argue that if an empty point is next to the opponent's dead stones then it is "dame". These people argue that the stone cannot be taken as "hama" after the game is stopped because the empty point is dame. For example, "j1989c.html" states "According to the definition of "eye points", the empty point D is not an eye point because it is not (!) surrounded by the live stones of just one player - instead it is surrounded by a combination of three black live stones and of one dead white stone. Since D is not an eye point, it is a dame." I disagree with this interpretation because 囲む in Article 8 doesn't necessary require adjacency 隣接, as in Article 4 (which is the basis for Article 5 取り).
Here is the diagram from j1989c.html alleging that one point is an eye (E) and the other is dame (D).


2. Referring to the statement 終局の合意の後、地の中の相手方の死に石はそのまま取り上げハマに加える in 第十条－１（勝敗の決定）, some people argue that after the game ends, dead stones cannot be taken as hama because they are not being taken "out of territory", that is, the intersecting point that the dead stones are occupying is not territory because territory is defined as an empty space. These people argue that territory should not be defined using the term "empty." I disagree with this interpretation because obviously the stones can be taken as hama. So the territory referred in the rule must be the one or more empty points of territory around the dead stones. Counting of territory happens after the dead stones are taken as hama (opening up more territory) so there is no issue.


3. Referring to the statement 相手方の着手により取られない石、又は取られても新たに相手方に取られない石を生じうる石は「活き石」という in 第七条（死活）- 2, some people (e.g., viewtopic.php?f=45&t=18372 and https://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html) argue that the new stones that cannot be captured must be newly placed AFTER the capturing of the original stones. However, that interpretation contradicts this example: https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/match/kiyak ... su-04.html where all of the new white stones that cannot be captured are placed before the capturable white stones are captured.
Example from the post linked above:

Cassandra wrote:

$$W
$$ +------------------------------------------------------
$$ | 3 X O . O X . . | O M O 4 O X . . | O . O B . X . . |
$$ | X 1 O 2 O X . . | M O O X O X . . | . O O X . X . . |
$$ | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . |
$$ | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |
$$ +------------------------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ +------------------------------------------------------
$$ | 3 X O . O X . . | O M O 4 O X . . | O . O B . X . . |
$$ | X 1 O 2 O X . . | M O O X O X . . | . O O X . X . . |
$$ | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . |
$$ | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |
$$ +------------------------------------------------------[/go]

Misleading!
J89's comment on L&D Example 2 ALSO describes as a "newly created stone that cannot be captured".
But has NOT been played AFTER White captured his stones in the corner.

So this should be an UNADAPTED RELIC of the initial version ("if capturing ... enables ..."; i.e. "if THE PROCESS of capturing ... enables ...").

4. Some people (in this thread), who didn't even bother to reference the rules, argue that players must be able to determine whether stones are alive. This is more of a question of board game design than Japanese. But I disagree because Article 7-1 provides a rule for determining whether stones are alive and then defines all other stones as being dead. Therefore, if a stone cannot be shown to be alive (the premise of the original post in this thread), then it must be dead.

Already known "Cruxes of the Matter" in the legal text
that I am currently aware of. Additional ones can be found in the Commentary, as well as in the L&D Examples.
The basis of the explanations below is James Davies' translation.


Article 1. The game of go
Go is a game in which two players compete in skill on a board, from the beginning of the game until the game stops according to Article 9, to see which can take more territory. A "game" refers to the moves played until the "end of the game."

TERRITORY is NOT the "territory" that is defined later in Article 8.
MOVE is no longer part of the current legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly.
The definition of MOVE is a compound of specific rulings in Articles 2 to 5.


Article 2. Play
The players can alternately play one move at a time, one player playing the black stones, his opponent the white stones.

The meaning of CAN has been discussed, but is specified in the Commentary.
This ALTERNATELY here might NOT be the "alternately" utilised later in Article 6.


Article 3. Point of play
The board is a grid of 19 horizontal and 19 vertical lines forming 361 intersections. A stone can be played on any unoccupied intersection (called an "empty point") on which Article 4 permits it to exist. The point on which a stone is played is called its "point of play."

EMPTY POINT is defined here.
This EMPTY POINT here might NOT be the "empty point" utilised later in Article 8.


Article 4. Stones that may exist on the board
After a move is completed, a group of one or more stones belonging to one player exists on its points of play on the board as long as it has a horizontally or vertically adjacent empty point, called a "liberty." No group of stones without a liberty can exist on the board.

LIBERTY is no longer part of the current legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly.


Article 5. Capture
If, due to a player's move, one or more of his opponent's stones cannot exist on the board according to the preceding article, the player must remove all these opposing stones, which are called "prisoners." In this case, the move is completed when the stones have been removed.


Article 6. Ko
A shape in which the players can alternately capture and recapture one opposing stone is called a "ko." A player whose stone has been captured in a ko cannot recapture in that ko on the next move.

CAN is confusing here, as the second sentence declares the "cannot".
This ALTERNATELY here might NOT be the "alternately" utilised earlier in Article 2.
CAPTURE is no longer part of the current legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly.


Article 7. Life and death
1. Stones are said to be "alive" if they cannot be captured by the opponent, or if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture. Stones which are not alive are said to be "dead."

IF CAPTURING is "ACTIVE clause", which does NOT match the corresponding "PASSIVE clause" in the legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly (it is probably something like "is taken" / "has been taken").
ENABLE is no longer part of the current legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly.
NEW is NOT defined explicitly. However, it should be evident that this stone a) has to be played AFTER (see the reference to "passive clause" above) the stones have been taken and b) it has to be in a cause-and-effect relationship to the previous removal of stones (i.e. this cannot be a move, which could have been played anyway, completely independent of the removal of stones).
TO BE PLAYED is no longer part of the current legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly.


2. In the confirmation of life and death after the game stops in Article 9, recapturing in the same ko is prohibited. A player whose stone has been captured in a ko may, however, capture in that ko again after passing once for that particular ko capture.

AFTER PASSING ONCE FOR THAT PARTICULAR is no longer part of the current legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly.
Applying the second sentence on several L&D Examples will NOT MATCH the intended results given.
Therefore, (it seems to me that) the second sentence has been essentially reworded, comparing the current legal text to James Davies' translation.


Article 8. Territory
Empty points surrounded by the live stones of just one player are called "eye points." Other empty points are called "dame." Stones which are alive but possess dame are said to be in "seki." Eye points surrounded by stones that are alive but not in seki are called "territory," each eye point counting as one point of territory.

TERRITORY, as defined here, is NOT the "territory" referenced to in Article 1.
This EMPTY POINT here might NOT be the "empty point" utilised earlier in Article 3. UNLESS the Japanese term used would ALWAYS reference to the UNOCCUPIED PORTION of the current state of a specific board point (i.e. a reference to the NAKED board).
On the contrary, taking EMPTY POINT literally would result in an absurd consequence, see below!!!
EYE POINT might have been a somewhat "unlucky" translation.
TERRITORY according to this translation consists of EMPTY POINTS (taken literally) ONLY!!!


Article 9. End of the game
1. When a player passes his move and his opponent passes in succession, the game stops.

The moment at which a player is allowed to PASS first is NOT defined. However, Article 2 makes clear that playing a move in alternation is a RIGHT, thus "pass" is allowed in principle. Article 1 makes clear that a player is allowed to do so, when he does not see any profitable move left on the board.


2. After stopping, the game ends through confirmation and agreement by the two players about the life and death of stones and territory. This is called "the end of the game."

It has been discussed that the AGREEMENT cannot be enforced.


3. If a player requests resumption of a stopped game, his opponent must oblige and has the right to play first.


Article 10. Determining the result
1. After agreement that the game has ended, each player removes any opposing dead stones from his territory as is, and adds them to his prisoners.

TERRITORY according to the translation of Article 8 consists of EMPTY POINTS (taken literally) ONLY!!! Therefore, NO opposing dead stones can be removed from it, as OCCUPIED points were NO TERRITORY!!!


2. Prisoners are then filled into the opponent's territory, and the points of territory are counted and compared. The player with more territory wins. If both players have the same amount the game is a draw, which is called a "jigo."

The first TERRITORY is clearly intended to be the unoccupied board points surrounded by the "independently alive" (due to the result of L&D assessment) stones of one player, AFTER the removal of opposing dead stones. This TERRITORY still matches the INTENDED definition of Article 8.
The second TERRITORY is clearly intended to be the RESULTING unoccupied board points surrounded by the previously "indepentently alive" (due to the result of the L&D assessment) stones of one player. As a matter of course, this TERRITORY can NO LONGER MATCH the definition of Article 8.


3. If one player lodges an objection to the result, both players must reconfirm the result by, for example, replaying the game.


4. After both players have confirmed the result, the result cannot be changed under any circumstances.


Article 11. Resignation
During a game, a player may end the game by admitting defeat. This is called "resigning." The opponent is said to "win by resignation."


Article 12. No result
When the same whole-board position is repeated during a game, if the players agree, the game ends without result.

It has been discussed that there is no EXPLICIT regulation for the case that the players do NOT AGREE.


Article 13. Both players lose
1. After the game stops according to Article 9, if the players find an effective move, which would affect the result of the game, and therefore cannot agree to end the game, both players lose.


2. If a stone on the board has been moved during the game and the game has proceeded, the game continues with the stone returned to its original point of play. If the players cannot agree, both players lose.


Article 14. Forfeit
Violation of the above rules causes immediate loss of the game, provided the result has not yet been confirmed by both players.

CDavis7M wrote:4. Some people (in this thread), who didn't even bother to reference the rules, argue ...

Still don't understand what went wrong with the translation? Does your negative attitude come therefrom?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Japanese language is implicit, indirect, context-sensitive.

Japanese people do not have any problems with

"KAN-JI" @ context #1 ==> meaning #1
"KAN-JI" @ context #2 ==> meaning #2
"KAN-JI" @ context #3 ==> meaning #3
"KAN-JI" @ context #4 ==> meaning #4


In stark contrast to this is the typical Western language EXPLICIT! DIRECT! Context-sensitive? Not really, right?

Let "tech-term" be the translation chosen for "KAN-JI". Then Western people will make of it

"tech-term" @ context #1 ==> meaning #5 (hopefully equivalent to meaning #1 above)
"tech-term" @ context #2 ==> meaning #5
"tech-term" @ context #3 ==> meaning #5
"tech-term" @ context #4 ==> meaning #5


It would be much more promising to translate "meaning #1 / meaning #2 / meaning #3 / meaning #4", instead of "KAN-JI / KAN-JI / KAN-JI / KAN-JI".


In extreme cases, it might be even advisable to have

"tech-term #1" @ context #1 ==> meaning #5 (hopefully equivalent to meaning #1 above)
"tech-term #2" @ context #2 ==> meaning #6 (hopefully equivalent to meaning #2 above)
"tech-term #3" @ context #3 ==> meaning #7 (hopefully equivalent to meaning #3 above)
"tech-term #4" @ context #4 ==> meaning #8 (hopefully equivalent to meaning #4 above)

even if none of the re-translations of "tech-term #1" to "tech-term #4" can be found in the Japanese original.

Some material for Article 7, Clause 1.


Simple snap-back

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

What is the status of Black's marked stone?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w1: pass; :b2: pass
$$ +----------------------------
$$ | . X O O . . | . B O O . . |
$$ | O O X O . . | O O X O . . |
$$ | X X X . . . | X X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . | . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . | . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stone was not taken => "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w3: pass; :b4: pass
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | 1 Z O O . . | O M O O . . | O 2 O O . . | . # O O . . | . B O O . . | . Y O O . . |
$$ | O O X O . . | O O X O . . | O O X O . . | . . X O . . | O O X O . . | O O X O . . |
$$ | X X X . . . | X X X . . . | X X X . . . | X X X . . . | X X X . . . | X X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . | . . . . . . | . . . . . . | . . . . . . | . . . . . . | . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . | . . . . . . | . . . . . . | . . . . . . | . . . . . . | . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stone is taken by .
Thereafter, is played. This is a stone that cannot be taken.
is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before , because that board point is still occupied by . => "alive".



Simple nakade

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ +---------------+
$$ | Y Y . O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |[/go]

What is the status of Black's marked stones?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w1: pass; :b2: pass
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | X X . O X . . | B B . O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones were not taken => "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w3: pass; :b4: pass
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | Z Z 1 O X . . | M M O O X . . | . 2 O O X . . | . # O O X . . | B B . O X . . | X Y . O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones are taken by .
Thereafter, is played. This stone is not taken by White.
is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before , because that board point is still occupied by . => "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w5: pass; :b6: pass
$$ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | Z Z 1 O X . . | M M O O X . . | 3 2 O O X . . | O 4 O O X . . | . # . . X . . | B B . O X . . | . Y O O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . | . . . . X . . | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones are taken by .
Thereafter, is played. This stone is taken by .
Thereafter, is played. This is a stone that cannot be taken.
is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before , because that board point is still occupied by . => "alive".
(===> The procedure is recursive.)



L&D Example 2

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ +------------------
$$ | . Y O . O X . . |
$$ | Y . O . O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X X . . |
$$ | X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . |[/go]

What is the status of Black's marked stones?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w1: pass; :w2: pass
$$ +------------------------------------
$$ | . X O . O X . . | . B O . O X . . |
$$ | X . O . O X . . | B . O . O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . |
$$ | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones were not taken => "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w5: pass; :w6: pass
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | . X O 3 O X . . | . X O O O X . . | . X . . . X . . | . B O . O X . . |
$$ | X 1 O 2 O X . . | X O O 4 O X . . | X . . X . X . . | B . O . O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . | . . . . X X . . | O O O O X X . . |
$$ | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones were not taken => "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w5: pass; :w6: pass
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | . X O . O X . . | 3 Z O . O X . . | O M O 4 O X . . | O . O # . X . . | . B O . O X . . | . X O Y O X . . | . X O M O X . . |
$$ | X 1 O 2 O X . . | Z O O X O X . . | M O O X O X . . | . O O X . X . . | B . O . O X . . | X . O Q O X . . | X . O O O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . | O O O O X X . . |
$$ | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . | X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones are taken by .
Thereafter, is played. This is a stone that cannot be taken.
is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before . Otherwise, it will be taken by , and no other "uncapturable" stone can be played thereafter. => "alive".



L&D Example 4

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ +-----------------------+
$$ | . O . . O O O Y O . . |
$$ | O O Y Y Y Y Y Y O . . |
$$ | . X O O O O O O O . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

What is the status of Black's marked stones?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w1: pass; :b2: pass
$$ +------------------------------------------------
$$ | . O . . O O O X O . . | . O . . O O O B O . . |
$$ | O O X X X X X X O . . | O O B B B B B B O . . |
$$ | . X O O O O O O O . . | . X O O O O O O O . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones were not taken => "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w3: pass; :w5: pass; :b6: pass
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | . O 1 2 O O O X O . . | . O O X . 4 . X O . . | . O . . O O O B O . . |
$$ | O O X X X X X X O . . | O O X X X X X X O . . | O O B B B B B B O . . |
$$ | . X O O O O O O O . . | . X O O O O O O O . . | . X O O O O O O O . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones were not taken => "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w5: pass; :b6: pass
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | . O 1 2 O O O X O . . | . O O X . 3 . X O . . | . O O X . O . X O . . | . O . . O O O B O . . |
$$ | O O X X X X X X O . . | O O X X X X X X O . . | O O X X X X X X O . . | O O B B B B B B O . . |
$$ | . X O O O O O O O . . | . X O O O O O O O . . | . X O O O O O O O . . | . X O O O O O O O . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . | 4 X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones were not taken => "alive".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | . O 1 2 O O O X O . . | . O O X . 3 . X O . . | . O O X . O 5 X O . . | . O O Z 7 O O Z O . . | . O O M O O O M O . . |
$$ | O O X X X X X X O . . | O O X X X X X X O . . | O O X X X X X X O . . | O O Z Z Z Z Z Z O . . | O O M M M M M M O . . |
$$ | . X O O O O O O O . . | . X O O O O O O O . . | 6 X O O O O O O O . . | X X O O O O O O O . . | X X O O O O O O O . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . | 4 X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's stones are taken by .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W :w9: pass; :b10: pass
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | . O O . O O O . O . . | . O O . O O O . O . . | . O O . O O O B O . . | . O O . O O O X O . . |
$$ | O O . . . . . . O . . | O O . . . . . . O . . | O O B B B B B B O . . | O O X X X X X X O . . |
$$ | X X O O O O O O O . . | X X O O O O O O O . . | . X O O O O O O O . . | . X O O O O O O O . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 8 X O . . . . . . . . | # X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | @ X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . | O X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Thereafter, is played. This is a stone that cannot be taken.
is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before , because that board point is still occupied by . => "alive".

Cassandra wrote:...Japanese language is implicit, indirect, context-sensitive....
In stark contrast to this is the typical Western language EXPLICIT! DIRECT! Context-sensitive? Not really, right?

I don't know who you are trying to trick, but I am well aware that the Japanese language has context sensitive meanings and nothing I've said here contradicts that. In fact, I've been espousing the importance of understanding context throughout the discussion. By the way, this post above and the numerous idiomatic errors in your other posts show that you misunderstand the context-sensitivities of the English language.

There is quite clearly no wide interest in pursuing clarification of the Japanese rules text. I am not surprised. I have always believed I am in the vast majority in not being interested in rules. And even those who are, often seem more interested in working towards a rule set of their own devising.

I will therefore not be kicking off a clause-by-clause deconstruction of the Japanese text. I will go back to doing my books (another one due soon!).

However, I will say this. Almost all the argument I have seen boils down to one side or the other relying on the English text. I think this is misleading in quite a few respects, even wrong in places, but the situation is made worse by non-native speakers of English straining at gnats over the English(i.e. the non-definitive) text. Some words they pore over are not even in the Japanese text. For example, there is no references to eyes in the Japanese There is no reference to "new" stones. (But there IS a definition of seki; they just happen to refer to seki groups - same thing.)

Those who do look at the Japanese impose western ideas on it. For example, there is no real tense in Japanese. They rely on aspect. But for convenience, the aspectual difference between completion and non-completion is sometimes past tense and non-past tense. Note, therefore, there is no present tense and no future tense and so there can be no real distinction between them. We actually have the same thing, to an extent, in English. "I am going to the shops" is a present tense form syntactically, but semantically is a future (= I will be going to the shops soon). There is a completion in Japanese in that the -ta form is often semantically equivalent to the -te iru form. These topics are relevant to the text in question. If you don't understand any of that, why are you arguing about what the Japanese means?

It is true that some compromise is always needed when translating from languages as different as Japanese and English. But there are limits. The "new stone" phrase in Article 7 is an invention of the translator, as is the accompanying word "enable".

Rather than quitting this post as a dead end, however, I will make a couple of more specific points. As one, at a first attempt at seeking a consensus, I would have offered something like the following for Article 7.1. "A group that will not be captured by placement of moves by the opponent, or a group that, even where some stones were to be captured, can afresh create a group that will not be captured, are said to be 'live groups'." Note that I have never read through the examples, so I have to offer this with some diffidence. But it makes sense to me in a way that the existing English text does not. (I'm assuming the convoluted second part refers to things like utazu sanmoku.)

Another point is that I feel too much stress is being put on "empty point" or akiten. It seems me that it is being taken too literally. Japanese does have ways of producing the meaning of totally content-free (for the 'empty set' they say 空の = kuuno, or they can use the word 空虚な. But when read aki, the common usage is as in akiya (vacant house) or akima (vacant room). Offering an akiya for rent doesn't mean it is devoid of content - at least few sticks of furniture.

It is true that akiten is defined as apparently a totally unoccupied point in Article 3 and later usages may seem to contradict that. But I don't find that strange. The Japanese way of thinking is has often been described as synthetic as opposed to the preferred western analytic way. Rather than dissecting, they pile on explanations that clarify the initial "definition". The true definition comes only implicitly at the end once all the extra gufvf has been absorbed.

That difference in thinking can be overstated, but there's some truth in it. For example, I have had to translate, into English, company pensions regulations that have already been translated into Japanese from the English version of the English parent company - the idea being to check they say what the original said. At the same time, the English company wanted to know what the Japanese company's own previous pension regulations said. The two resulting Japanese texts said very similar things, but the one from the English company was full of definitions and tadashis ('provided that...) and ordered and completely different way from the original Japanese effort. We see similar culture clashes in patents, which by and large are written in a "western" analytic way which has international status, which the Japanese usually dutifully try to follow, but sometimes fail, or sometimes they just do it their own way. The result can be legal disputes.

There is also an problem with trying to impose cultural attitudes. For example, there are those who believe that everything is verboten unless specifically allowed, while others believe everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited. There are those who try to try to mathematicalise everything. There are those who think common sense should have priority.

The fact that the Japanese J1989 preamble stresses that the text was written to reflect the traditional Japanese way of play. plus the fact that the Japanese never saw fit before 1949 to bother with written rules (i.e. prohibitions) and have never attached much importance to the exercise since, would seem to tell us quite clearly which camps they are in.

John Fairbairn wrote:Almost all the argument I have seen boils down to one side or the other relying on the English text.

Still better than Google translate and similar tools, which (or even less) seemed to fuel the recent fad of misinterpretations or outright wrong inventions.

One thing I'd like to suggest is if any work is done regarding translations, please also include a romanized Japanese version. There may be people - me included - who understand Japanese to a reasonable extent but cannot read kanji - and Google seems unreliable even for getting the correct reading sometimes.

Rather than dissecting, they pile on explanations that clarify the initial "definition". The true definition comes only implicitly at the end once all the extra gufvf has been absorbed.

The "new stone" phrase in Article 7 is an invention of the translator, as is the accompanying word "enable".

I doubt this in itself is necessarily a bad thing. AFAIK Davies' work was based on good knowledge of both Japanese and Go - even go rules, possibly beyond (!) the original Japanese text. This allowed him to choose wordings that - in his opinion - best represent the INTENDED meaning in English.

"A group that will not be captured by placement of moves by the opponent, or a group that, even where some stones were to be captured, can afresh create a group that will not be captured, are said to be 'live groups'."

There are possible problems with too literal translations as well. This text ("afresh") would be more easy to misinterpret to mean that the new uncapturable stones must be played AFTER the capture. But this is not the case, as seen in example #4. (The sequence shown has the capture as the LAST move, and enabled uncapturable stones were played earlier. Although W could also play a W8 afterwards on dame, this is not shown so clearly not intended.)