It is currently Fri May 07, 2021 8:51 am

 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

 Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ]
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: written EVID of ancient rules in different historical stage #1 Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:48 pm
 Dies in gote

Posts: 65
Liked others: 6
Was liked: 8
written evidence of ancient rules in different historical stages

1. group tax(还棋头) is only for rules of Ming and Qing Dynasties.
Both sides divide the basic eyes (make groups alive forever) equally, this is group tax.
Just counting the stone pieces of one side, only needs to be compared with 180.5,
it simplifies process of judging the outcome, and save time.

1.1 rules of Ming and Qing Dynasties in no handicap games:
the problem of last dame(单官),See Zhao Zhiyun 6p's article for details.

1.2 rules of Ming and Qing Dynasties in handicap games:
if handicap 3 stones, Return 3 stones.It is quite different from the rules of Tang and Song dynasties.See Zhao Zhiyun 6p's article for details.

see below:
Attachment:

zzy_2.png [ 431.02 KiB | Viewed 366 times ]

Attachment:
wx.SGF [1.84 KiB]

2. In Song Dynasty, WeiQi players calculated lu(路road) to decide the outcome.In essence, it is to calculate the number of captives.
Basic eyes (make groups alive forever) are not lu(路road).Lu(路road) is the ability to get more captives.
As a simple method, weiqi players in Song Dynasty often directly fill the prisoners into each other's territory.
Why? Because it is an exchange that one party gains the other party's captors and backfills them into the other party's lu(road),
which counteracts the other party's ability to obtain the captors.
see: https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=17866

The situation in Tang Dynasty should be similar to that in Song Dynasty, but the name is not "lu".
IN Song Dynasty and more early, WeiQi players are not allowed to put down move on dames(单官), unless it's for the sake of balance. So, there is not the problem of last dame.

written EVID: Thirteen Chapters Classic, Chinese name:《棋经十三篇》 and game records from so called C&IP.

3. In the northern and Southern Dynasties, WeiQi players simply calculated the number of captives.
Texts of Dunhuang Classic of Weiqi: 碁有停道及两溢者，子多为胜。
Translation:There are situations of "equal in Dao(停道)" or "both parties overflow(两溢)" in Qi(碁), the one who has more stones(子) who win.
In Dunhuang "Classic of WeiQi", stones(Chinese:子) are not living stones on the board, they are captives.
see: https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=17870

written EVID: Dunhuang "Classic of WeiQi"(Dunhuang Classic Go Manual) found at Dunghuang, Chinese name:敦煌《碁经》

4. See my articles post before: Research of ancient weiqi rules in two Chinese classic books
https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=17865

There is no lack of ancient written evidence about the rules of WeiQi in ancient China.
The important thing is to be able to understand and explain the written evidence.

And I think the best rules of WeiQi are the rules of Song Dynasty.
Japanese go rules are a kind of cultural alienation.
There is no cultural confidence in Contemporary Chinese WeiQi rules.

_________________
Zhang-hu 章浒
Committed to the restoration Chinese traditional Weiqi
Research on ancient Weiqi rules & Classic (Dunhuang Classic and the Thirteen Chapters Classic)
From Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China

Last edited by pgwq on Thu May 06, 2021 8:48 pm, edited 36 times in total.
 This post by pgwq was liked by: Bill Spight
Top

 Post subject: Re: written EVID of ancient rules in different historical st #2 Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:09 am
 Oza

Posts: 2909
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3979
Quote:
written evidence of ancient rules in different historical stages

1. group tax is only for rules of Ming and Qing Dynasties.
2. In the Tang and Song Dynasties, WeiQi players calculated lu(road) to decide the outcome.In essence, it is to calculate the number of captives.
3. In the northern and Southern Dynasties, WeiQi players simply calculated the number of captives.

Some here will regard this as a startling (but fascinating) series of statements.

I'll leave rules experts to chew on the fat, but will make a few comments to help the discussion along.

1. Tang refers to two dynasties. The first ran from 618 to 907. The Later Tang ran from 923-936. In go terms the fulcrum of The main Tang dynasty may be regarded as the reign of the Xuan Zong Emperor, 713-756. There are no surviving game records from this era (or earlier ones) but there are many references and this was probably the time the famous ancient go boards now in the Shosoin in Kyoto reached Japan. It has long been assumed that the rules of go reached Japan from China at the same time. There are, however, increasing suspicions that Japan may have imported go even earlier.

Those who believe Tang-era used group tax (I personally have doubts but have bowed to what I regard as more expert opinion) have had to explain away the fact that the Japanese showed no evidence of using it. But there is no evidence they didn't use it, either. Apart from the well-known story of Kibi no Makibi, there are later documented go links between Chinese and Japanese go players. The best known are the scholar-priest Bensho, who stayed in in China 701-703 and apparently played go before the Xuan Zong Emperor. Another is Tomo no Okatsuo who was a famous player in 9th century Japan. He went on a mission to China in 804. Tomo no Sugao wemt to China in 836. On his return he played Tomo no Okatsuo in front of the Japanese empperor, and, armed with the latest knowledge from China, was able to give a two-stone handicap. There are also the extensive diaries of priests such as Ennin who spent a lot of time in China. There are Chinese offocials who came to Japan and played there. In all of this there is no evidence of any difference in rules between the two countries. In each country, there is no evidence of any change of rules prior to Ming times. In other words, no evidence that group tax was ever abolished in Japan.

2. The oldest surviving game record that may offer some sort of date is a record in Carefree & Innocent pastime that is attributed to the master Jia Xuan, and we know he was active 976-995. This record, and all other ancient records, are first recored in the C&IP in Song times. The Song had Northern (earlier) and Sothern (later) branches. The Southern Song is the main one as regards go documents (partly because printing flourished then) and spanned 11267-1278.

3. The Ming dynasty spanned 1368-1644. The Qingg spanned 1644-1908. The Ming dynasty (when a rule change definitely occurred, though the details are not recorded) was an abrupt change. It ended the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty and put native Han Chinese back on the throne (for the last time - the Qing were northern Manchu invaders). There is no evidence that the rulers ever paid any attention to go rules, but there is obviously a possibility that the vast cultural changes in the Ming - which were more than about vases - brought one co-existing form of go to prominence over another. There is some slight evidence in Ming go books that a form of go that resembled Korean sunjang baduk may have been prevalent at one time.

4. The reference to "lu (roads)", i.e. 路, is to intersections (i.e. empty points). In Ming/Q9ng times the unit of counting was 子 (stones).

5. By "northern and Southern dynasties" pgwq probably does not mean northern and southern Song here, but the 南北朝 or 420-589. This era is significant in go terms for several essays, even at emperor level, but also because, according o one Chinese scholar, this was the period when conditions were right for a changeover from 17x17 to 19x19 boards. He did not say the changeover actually happened there, or that any changeover was abrupt, or that other size boards did not exist, or that any change of board size was accompanied by a change in rules. He just said the conditions were right. But if you accept that (and that includes personal involvement of powerful/influential emperors known to be passionate about go), then clearly the conditions were also ripe for a change in rules. But there is no "written evidence." I personally have seen no suggestion that calculation was done by "number of captives" at this time, and I suspect the English rendering may not be quite right, but if there was a change in board size, probably around this time, and a concomitant change in rules cannot be ruled out.

I now hand over to the experts.

 This post by John Fairbairn was liked by 2 people: Bill Spight, ez4u
Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ]

 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ Life In 19x19.com General Topics    Introductions and Guidelines    Off Topic    Announcements    General Go Chat    Beginners    Amateurs    Professionals       Lee Sedol vs Gu Li    Go Rules    Forum/Site Suggestions and Bugs    Creative writing    Tournaments       Ride share to tournaments Improve Your Game    Game Analysis    Study Group    Teachers/Club Leaders       Teacher advertisements    Study Journals L19²GO (Malkovich)    1-on-1 Malkovich games    Big Brother Malkovich games    Rengo Games    Other versions of turn-based games Go Gear    Go Books    Go Book Reviews    Computer Go    Gobans and other equipment    Trading Post    New Products/Upgrades/Sales Go Club Forums    Go Club Discussions       Honinbo Go League    American Go Association Forum       Go Congress 2011 volunteers       AGA volunteers ( non-congress)    Australian Go Association    European Go Federation Forum    Singapore Weiqi Association    KGS    ASR League    IGS    OGS    Tygem    WBaduk    Turn Based Servers    Insei League Events    Kaya.gs       King of the Hill