the position in the original link is not the end position -- its only the position showing the atari in question.

the video screen shot appears to show the end position since it looks like she is removing dead stones -- and e1 (move w180) is unfilled.

all these happens because korean baduk club is not doing their job properly.
there is no set rule that defines the end of the game that covers all situations.
there were dispute few times before and after few years later they are still lacking correct written rule book and having same problem as before.
there is no translation in english because they dont have one for korean.

all they care about is about their monthly income to be secured.
i bet that korean baduk club will have same problem soon because they are too lazy and dumb.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Is it laziness or traditionalism?

That's interesting. So I take it you mean that there are no official rules, and that all disputes must be arbitrarily resolved? Of course, Japan and China haven't fixed all the rules problems yet either. I think New Zealand rules should be adopted as the international standard until a superior alternative is developed. For Robert Jasiek: Is there any provision in any ruleset that deals with this specific issue (other than maybe Ing)?

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

once you become a professional in korea you are guarantee some amount of money per month from the hankook kiwon.
it is like a government workers in US who dosent have to work but still get paid. so i guess it is not traditionalism.

all they are intrested is to keep that basepay from hankook kiwon. other issues are not as important as their pay.
i am thinking whole pay structure need to change but i dont think they will let go of their livelyhood easily.
they work really hard to keep paystructure as it is so i guess it is not laziness either.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Magicwand, at least the declared traditionalists among the Korean professionals responsible for rules (like Mrs. Nam) say that they want to keep the Korean game end rules [with their peculiarities] because they like that tradition, although they do not understand it fully themselves (see rec.games.go threads related to What is a Korean Ko Threat) and although they are aware of my rules theory on Japanese style territory scoring. They cannot justify their tradition by arguments other than "We like it.". In particular the so called Korean rules expert Nam wrote texts to justify them about which, after having read them 10 times to ensure not missing the intention, I have to say: No contents or flawed contents. Simply stating "We want to keep our flawed tradition no matter what others think, period!" would have come closer to the point.

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



Not all but in most cases that become interesting:) (1992 rules, cited roughly from memory: "In situations where the above rules are unclear, the KBA will adjudicate.")



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



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.



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).

Nam chi-young said that? is she being sinical? i am sure her english is good enough to avoid any misinterperation so i can not understand why she would say such comments.

there are korean rule but it is so basic...it will not resolve many peculiar situations.
it only cover basic rule that 18 kyu already know.
it also covers few shapes that dan players might not know the result of.
other than that it is pretty much useless in my opinion.

actually korean rule is 100% same as japanese rule in my opinion.
rule book should be able to resolve all conflict but currently it is not doing its job.
i am sure they made this ruling to match preceding conflict with chinese player.
i am thinking if it wasnt for that previous ruling they would have gave differnet ruling on this.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

She, yes. She used long text; the shorthand summaries are from me.



No. See http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/difference_ ... rules.html

How about the Ikeda Rules (Area rules III)
or Two Button Go

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

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.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

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



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.

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.


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


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.


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.

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

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.)



Positional superko is better, as explained elsewhere.



Don't worry, I am:)



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?

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.



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.


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?


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

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

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.

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



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



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



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.



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;)



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



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



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

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.

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?