It is currently Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:25 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #101 Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:10 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
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

:w1: "KAN-JI" @ context #1 ==> meaning #1
:w2: "KAN-JI" @ context #2 ==> meaning #2
:w3: "KAN-JI" @ context #3 ==> meaning #3
:w4: "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

:b1: "tech-term" @ context #1 ==> meaning #5 (hopefully equivalent to meaning #1 above)
:b2: "tech-term" @ context #2 ==> meaning #5
:b3: "tech-term" @ context #3 ==> meaning #5
:b4: "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

:b5: "tech-term #1" @ context #1 ==> meaning #5 (hopefully equivalent to meaning #1 above)
:b6: "tech-term #2" @ context #2 ==> meaning #6 (hopefully equivalent to meaning #2 above)
:b7: "tech-term #3" @ context #3 ==> meaning #7 (hopefully equivalent to meaning #3 above)
:b8: "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.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs, really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #102 Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:46 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
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 :w1:.
Thereafter, :b2: is played. This is a stone that cannot be taken.
:bs: is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before :w1:, because that board point is still occupied by :bt:. => "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 :w1:.
Thereafter, :b2: is played. This stone is not taken by White.
:bs: is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before :w1:, because that board point is still occupied by :bt:. => "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 :w1:.
Thereafter, :b2: is played. This stone is taken by :w3:.
Thereafter, :b4: is played. This is a stone that cannot be taken.
:bs: is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before :w3:, because that board point is still occupied by :bt:. => "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 :w3:.
Thereafter, :b4: is played. This is a stone that cannot be taken.
:bs: is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before :w3:. Otherwise, it will be taken by :wt:, 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 :w7:.

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, :b8: is played. This is a stone that cannot be taken.
:bs: is also a "new" stone, as it cannot be played before :w7:, because that board point is still occupied by :wt:. => "alive".

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs, really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #103 Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:39 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 280
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
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.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #104 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:11 am 
Oza

Posts: 3094
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4112
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #105 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:45 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 401
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 35
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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.)


Last edited by jann on Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #106 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:50 am 
Judan

Posts: 5520
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 748
Article 7.1. "A group that will not be captured by placement of moves by the opponent [...]"

Read literally, this can mean successive moves by the opponent. Read liberally, this presumes a context of alternating play, variations, decision-making and applied strategies (to capture versus to prevent capture) by both players. It does not state its starting player.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #107 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:55 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1001
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 169
It's hopeless, John. This is something people just insist on doing, interpreting according to a translation in their language instead or referring to the original language.The do this even with religious texts that have been translated through a series of languages!

Personally, I am more concerned with manipulation of the non-verbal components, the diagrams.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #108 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:01 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
(I'm assuming the convoluted second part refers to things like utazu sanmoku.)

The STANDARD application case is "uttegaeshi" and "nakade".

E.g. L&D Examples 2 and 4 are EXCEPTIONAL application cases.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs, really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #109 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:49 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
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.)

After having referred to several ENGLISH English grammar, it seems to me that James Davies' "if capturing them would ..." was OK, especially in the light of your own explanations on this topic.

"capturing" is PRESENT PROGRESSIVE (which does NOT exist in German language!), and apparently, BOTH the Japanese AND the English texts cover TWO DIFFERENT application cases.

:w1: "being taken" happens just NOW (probably the majority of application cases for present progressive). THEREAFTER, some uncapturable stones will be established on the board.
:w2: "being taken" is a fixed aim for the future (similar to "I will be leaving in the afternoon.") BEFORE, some uncapturable stones are established on the board.

Really no ambiguities in the rule texts (English and Japanese)?


John Fairbairn wrote:
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.

This implies that the result of my "reverse engineering" ("empty point" always refers to the NAKED board) wasn't that far off the beaten track, was it?
And maybe a "furnished" rental apartment isn't "empty", is it (at least in common Western understanding)?


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

BTW,

Mike Novack wrote:
Personally, I am more concerned with manipulation of the non-verbal components, the diagrams.

In EVERY application case of :w2: above, it is possible to establish at least one uncapturable stone on the board AFTER "being taken" has happened!

Some investigation will reveal that OTHERWISE the specific board position would make "being taken" impossible.
So I don't understand all the fuss about this point. Especially given that the Japanese original itself contains several OBVIOUS errors.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs, really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #110 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:43 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 261
Liked others: 17
Was liked: 30
Rank: panda 4 dan
IGS: kvasir
John Fairbairn wrote:
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.


In my opinion it would be more suitable if someone made their own draft translation than to try to start the "committee for the translation of Japanese rules". First of all, doing a collaborative effort is a lot more complicated than if a single competitive translator (or a couple of people who already can work together) has a go at drafting a translation. The second reason is the level of discussion here, it is just ridicules in so many ways.

I have said it before, the method of inquire being employed in most of these threads is just nonsense (I shall add "in my opinion" to be more polite). We don't need to do a word-by-word comparison of the James Davis translation and the Japanese. We don't need to reflect so much on "cultural" differences or "historic" context. We also don't need to read in-between the lines, speculate about deeper meaning of everyday vocabulary, and so on. This is just a document that we would all read in Japanese if we could, but because many can't read Japanese we read a translation (knowing full well it is that). If we think the translation is not clear enough, which seems to be what people think, we need to find someone willing to make a new translation rather than have a debate about trivial and idle things.

Even a draft translation is lot of unthankful work so I don't really see that happening. Especially considering that only one translation seems to exists even though these rules were published 30 years ago and are supposedly in use around the world. I can still hope that someone will produce a better, clearer or more informed translation. I'd help but I only know phrases in Japanese from anime that usually don't mean exactly what I'd think. I am sure I am not in a minority, being incompetent to help with a translation.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #111 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 8:26 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
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.

Ambiguity arises in the mind of the reader, not in the mind of the writer.
If you are unwilling to accept this, don't try translating J89 into English.

How can "bananas minus something not equal to zero equals bananas" (in any language) be considered a valid phrase in a rule text that has defined "bananas" as a specific technical term before?

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs, really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #112 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 1:43 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 280
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
Any interpretation pretending that the Rule Designers don't know their own language must be wrong. I don't even understand why people would want to make this argument. The diagrams show how the Rules should be understood. No knowledge of Japanese is needed to read a diagram.

And even if it could be shown that the words say something different or non-standard, the diagrams show precisely what the author meant by their terminology. The author of Rules for a Game is free to create terms and to appropriate words for their own use. Read the reviews of Go Encyclopedia books. Even the Japanese don't understand Go terminology until it has been introduced to them. My point being, even if a correct translation were drafted, and even if it did contradict the examples, all that means is that the Rules are using non-standard language having a specific meaning for this game. There is no way for an example to be wrong. It's an example of what is right. There IS a plausible and correct interpretation.

If the Rules diagrams show that stones are alive by placing new stones before other stones are captured, then this is what the Rules must allow. The diagram was prepared for a reason. There's also no need to pretend that because the Rules could work some other way that they do.

If surrounded dead stones can be removed even if they are occupying a non-empty point, then the territory referenced in the Rules must be the other point of territory also surrounded. A diagram shows this and says so. There's no need to pretend otherwise.

And some misunderstandings are not even translation issues, it's game design. Even if the Japanese have a different way they write rules, they still made the decision to define alive status as the status to be shown.

---------

If people enjoy Go because they like to draw diagrams and make up rules, then enjoy. But don't pretend that the Japanese Rules can't handle life and death or other basic game concepts.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #113 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 2:57 pm 
Oza

Posts: 3094
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4112
Quote:
In my opinion it would be more suitable if someone made their own draft translation than to try to start the "committee for the translation of Japanese rules".


That is what I proposed. But as doing translations is a busman's holiday for me, I wanted to do it in small stages spread over a decent period. The "committee" part would come in others agreeing on the final version. My own view on committees is based on the old adage that a committee to design a horse ends up with an elephant. In addition, by temperament I'm not committee material myself. I didn't hold out much hope for agreement among the other parties actually, but what I also hoped for as a more likely outcome (though I was still tilting towards pessimism on that, too) was that the discussants might realise that much of their passion (shall we call it?) was overdone and, in particular, at least some of their targets were misplaced.

Quote:
Ambiguity arises in the mind of the reader, not in the mind of the writer.


I have said often, and recently, here that I regard the Japanese rules text as a pig's breakfast. I also once described "Japanese rules" as an oxymoron. It doesn't happen so often nowadays, but there was a time when I (and many other people) used to rail against the instruction pamphlets in "English" that came with Japanese electrical goods and the like. They were gibberish and so actually a safety hazard. They came about because Japanese companies thought they could use Japanese people to write English leaflets. They can't. There were pig's breakfasts everywhere, and the reason I regard the J1989 rules as another PB has its basis in a similar phenomenon. The Japanese rules authors were clear, as I keep repeating, in that they stressed their Japanocentric view. They were also honest and reliable in that they wrote their rules in Japanese (and for pros). Where they fell down was in mixing this up with an attempt to internationalise their rules, partly out of benevolence and partly out of nationalism (resisting Chinese rules). If they were to do this part properly, they should have something more radical, such as co-opting western rules mavens onto the initial committee, or having the translation widely scrutinised by other translators (as the EU, for example, does even though they employ outstanding first-instance translators) and/or western rules mavens. Alternatively (and this would have been my view), they shouldn't have tried it in the first place, as so few people would care about it. The few people that did care, moreover, kicked up such a shitstorm that (according to my source there) the Japanese wished they had never started.

A major problem as I see it is that that shitstorm has never properly abated, and for much of the time has resulted in two unpleasant things: (1) Japan bashing, and (2) metaphorical attempts to bludgeon fellow rules discussants to death on forums such as this. What makes this bashing especially unpleasant is that it comes draped in arrogance and ignorance. And both -ances synergistically feed off each other. Nuclear fusion HAS been discovered!

When I worked in a newsroom, one thing that happened quite often was getting letters from members of the public who (shall we say) were a little detached from reality. Conspiracy theorists, and the like. These letters, demanding we should publish a call for action by the government, were almost always anonymous, and written in capital letters and coloured ink (green was the favourite). Most sentences ended in a series of exclamation marks (or SCREAMERS as we journalists called them). One other characteristic of these letters was their apparently impeccable logic. In fact, these letters gave rise to my scorn for much of logic because, of course, logic only works if you start in the right place. I remember one example more than others because it related to Berwick (a town I know fairly well because of family connections). Berwick is a border town (the border between Scotland and England) with a long-held odd status. Even today, for example, it is in England but its football team plays in Scotland. In the time of Queen Victoria it was apparently listed separately in her official title (Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, Berwick-upon-Tweed and the British Dominions, or something like that). She used this title when signing the declaration of war with Russia in the Crimea. When the war ended, the treaty, in French, omitted Berwick in the Queen's title, and this led to the long-standing belief that Berwick remains at war with Russia. (Problems with translations at the very highest level, be it noted!) When I was a teenager, there was some attempt to pacify relations with Russia, and so there was a media event in Berwick in which a Russian diplomat and the Lord Mayor of Berwick signed a peace treaty. It was just a bit of fun really - the mayor sent a message to Moscow that the Russians could now sleep safely in their beds.

In fact, the original story was apparently a joke by a journalist, but was taken seriously enough for the Foreign Office to check their files on a couple of occasions. They found no basis for the story. But that and the mayoral "treaty" didn't sway our man with the green ink. He claimed Berwick and Russia were still at war and the Russian submarines and aeroplanes intercepted off Britain's North Sea coast was proof that the war was still on. Oh, the power of logic! Logic which he pursued relentlessly, week after week, until even we stopped laughing (you were allowed to laugh in offices in those pre-PC days). The same sort of logic that is pursued today, in fake stories about vaccines, for example - and even more vigorously and virulently now that we have the internet (and forums).

I can't pretend I've ever understood this behaviour. I could have understood if green-ink man had simply said the Russian military is off our coast and we should do something about it. (Which we do, but it doesn't necessarily make the newspapers.) In the same way, I can understand if a western go amateur says the Japanese rules are not fit for some of their purpose. But I don't understand the declarations of war against Japan, Japanese pros, or fellow discussants. As the English translation of J1989 begins (incorrectly, as it happens), "Go is a game..."

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #114 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 3:28 pm 
Judan

Posts: 5520
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 748
John Fairbairn wrote:
I don't understand the declarations of war against Japan, Japanese pros, or fellow discussants.


Replace "war" by "unyielding discussion / point of view" and apply it to both maintainers and overcomers of Japanese / Korean Rules.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #115 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:54 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 280
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
There are thousands of game forums with heated discussions on the rules.

Only a small fraction of those game forums have players that think they are smarter than the rule authors.

And there is only one game forum I've seen where players that can't even read the rules pretend to try to prove that the rule authors are incompetent by their mathematical prowess and diagram making abilities.

I did bring up the "pass" discussion. But this was not an attempt to prove the rule authors as being incompetent.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #116 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 8:21 pm 
Beginner

Posts: 9
Liked others: 4
Was liked: 1
John Fairbairn wrote:
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!).

....
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.


I believe these posts are probably also followed by people who read them hoping for a little bit of light, but often finding mostly heat. Speaking for myself, I am very interested in a clarification of the rules. Whether you choose to take a stab at it or not, I remain grateful for several titles you have brought to my shelf/ipad.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #117 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 10:58 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 73
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 10
Quote:
Gérard TAILLE:
As an example:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ --------------
$$ | X . . X . O . X . O X . . -
$$ | X . . X O O . . O O X . . -
$$ | X X X X O O O O O O X . . -
$$ | O O O O X X X X X X X . . -
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ -----------------------------[/go]

For an experimented player it is quite easy to see which stones are dead. But I think a beginner knowing perfectly the rule, will not be able to give the correct result without an help from an experimented player.
Japonese rule is probably perfect for good players but maybe a nightmare for beginners. That does not mean japonese rule is not correct but certainly it is not an ideal rule.


Japanese go rules are a clumsy replica of ancient Chinese Weiqi rules.
There is no need to cite so many examples, as in the Japanese go rules.

In ancient Chinese Weiqi rules,
if group(s) is alive, it can survive on the board.
How to prove that it is alive or dead?
Both parties put down a stone alternately and without any "pass", the numbers of total moves is even.
"overflow"(hand over 1 stone to your opponent directly) is allowed.

Please see below:


Attachments:
alive_or_dead.sgf [708 Bytes]
Downloaded 78 times

_________________
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
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group