| Life In 19x19 http://lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=18275 |
Page 4 of 6 |
| Author: | Cassandra [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
RobertJasiek wrote: In this context, I have not called a single game a tounament. (I did, however, play in subtournaments comprising one game.) Have you still not got it? The Nihon Kiin 1989 Rules are about ONE game of Go only! |
|
| Author: | Cassandra [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
RobertJasiek wrote: In this context, I have not called a single game a tounament. (I did, however, play in subtournaments comprising one game.) Applicability to all positions is a necessity. Studying eccentric positions is a joy. Western rule freaks ... 
|
|
| Author: | gennan [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
I use verbal rules in my own games and so do most other players, I suppose. So the ambiguity of the definition of life and death in the official 1989 rules has never affected any of my games. But it cannot be denied that verbal rules don't fully match the official rules. These positions are indeed unrealistic. But that is besides the point. I think it's good that such anomalies are pointed out and potential fixes in the offical rules are explored, even though it's unlikely to affect my games. I don't believe that rules specialists aim to use their special knowledge to win tournament games with some obscure exploit of a rule anomaly. @Cassandra These topics are discussed in the "Go Rules" subforum, which is a natural place for rules enthousiasts to discuss these matters. Why do you feel the need to repeatedly insult them here by calling them "rule freaks"? |
|
| Author: | Pio2001 [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
gennan wrote: I use verbal rules in my own games and so do most other players, I suppose. So the ambiguity of the definition of life and death in the official 1989 rules has never affected any of my games. Of course it has  Here, the F6 black stone has no eye, is not in seki, and can obviously be captured. However it is alive. And it is very important, under japanese rules, that Black doesn't have to capture the two white stones in order to prove it, because he would loose one point. |
|
| Author: | Cassandra [ Sun Jul 18, 2021 7:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
gennan wrote: These positions are indeed unrealistic. ... I think it's good that such anomalies are pointed out and potential fixes in the offical rules are explored, ... Do you really assume that discussions like that here, or the pretended "anomalies" found by some Western rule freaks, get an official hearing in East-Asia? These "anomalies" exist in an artificially created surrounding only. You will never ever encounter these in the realm of real life for which the official rules were written. Why should anyone see a need for action? Just because a few people in the West play plaintiff and judge in one person? Have you ever heard of a rules dispute in professional Japanese Go since 1989? |
|
| Author: | RobertJasiek [ Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
There have been rules disputes in professional Japanese Go since 1989. In particular, a consequence is that alternate filling of dame has been used more. You need not cite anomalies to have relevant rules implications in EACH game. |
|
| Author: | Gérard TAILLE [ Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
Do you like quite strange sequence ? |
|
| Author: | Cassandra [ Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
RobertJasiek wrote: There have been rules disputes in professional Japanese Go since 1989. In particular, a consequence is that alternate filling of dame has been used more. You need not cite anomalies to have relevant rules implications in EACH game. Do you want to say that a rules "dispute" arose just because both players did not follow the binding ones? Or one player was mindedly absent before saying "I pass"? |
|
| Author: | RobertJasiek [ Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
Unfortunately, I have forgotten the details and would need to dig more deeply in my files than I have time ATM. |
|
| Author: | Cassandra [ Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
RobertJasiek wrote: Unfortunately, I have forgotten the details and would need to dig more deeply in my files than I have time ATM. So let us assume that the supposed "dispute" could be resolved within the ruleset in force. Otherwise, there would have been a "Rev. 1", either for the rules, or for the commentaries. But there is none. |
|
| Author: | RobertJasiek [ Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
Japanese rules tradition went from pre-1949 (or possibly earlier) "leave dame etc. unplayed by all means" via "fix" J1949 by J1989 to noticing what J1989 actually means so "play the dame to guarantee territory". A less dubious process would have been to maintain professional attitude: learn from one's mistake, admit that the J1989 dame definition was a conceptual mistake with originally unintended consequences and overcome the mistake. |
|
| Author: | Cassandra [ Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
Sorry, no further discussion of disputes you suspect, as long as you are unable to bring along qualified details. |
|
| Author: | Pio2001 [ Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
Gérard TAILLE wrote: Do you like quite strange sequence ? Nice ! |
|
| Author: | pgwq [ Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:45 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? | ||
Gérard TAILLE wrote: Thank you for the link Bill. It allows me to give you a more convincing position: If white stones are dead then the black score is (17 * 17 * 2) + 5 = 583 points Assuming now that 582 black stones have been captured, and assuming a komi 0.5, then the result is a black win by 0.5 points. That means that black must avoid to capture at "a" because she will loose one point and the game (white will simply pass without trying to live) Both players agree to stop the game and now the confirmation phase begin. The problem is now the following : nobody knows the god sequence saying if white stones are really dead under hypothetical play. The result of the game is simply unkonwn because the humans are not strong enough! BTW I doubt the current computers are able to give us the correct result. I don't want to make any excuses for the "Japanese go rules". Because it randomly modified the rules of the Tang and Song Dynasties, Under Tang song rules, the number of moves of black and white sides should be equal, without "pass". Let's look: Black's moves: 582(prisoners) + 17*4(on board + "a") = 650 White's moves: 17*17=289 And, according to ancient Chinese Weiqi rules, basic liberties which make groups alive forever are not territory. If one party can not put down stones on the board, 'pass' is prohibitted. 'overflow', then 'overflow of two parties'. See my articles. overflow: hand over 1 stone to your opponent directly From above the board. It's like water overflowing from a bottle. Special case: group/stone(s) which only 1 liberty will alive on the board. If you killed these group/stone(s), you will lost more. Attachment: gz5.png [ 114.87 KiB | Viewed 9374 times ] then(please see comments in sgf file): In ancient Chinese philosophy, Alternating between Yin and Yang is called Tao. Chinese: 一阴一阳之谓道。
|
|||
| Author: | CDavis7M [ Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
Why are people pretending that the Japanese Rules do not clearly handle these situations? The Japanese Rules are simple. Stones are only "alive stones" if they cannot be captured or, even if they can be, new stones can be placed that cannot be captured. Stones are "dead stones" if they are not "alive stones." The Japanese Rules place the burden on showing life. There is no burden to show death -- it is the default status of stones. All stones are dead if they are not alive. The Japanese Rules define numerous basic shapes as being alive or dead, none of which cover the situations here. If a player cannot prove that stones are alive (this was the given assumption in the original post), then the stones are dead stones. Gérard TAILLE wrote: What is the problem. Nobody knows if black can live in the upper left corner (after white makes the capture) and more over nobody knows if black can live under hypothetical play! Well then clearly the black stones are dead stones according to the Japanese Rules. The Japanese Rules do not define the black shape as being a living shape and black cannot show in Life & Death confirmation that any new stones are stones that cannot be captured. Since Black cannot meet the burden of showing life, then the black stones are dead. Black can resume the game but that does not help Black here. There is no requirement for white to play to show that the black stones are dead.Maybe we can conclude to a no result by ignorance (and not due to a explicit loop) ? Gérard TAILLE wrote: If white stones are dead then the black score is (17 * 17 * 2) + 5 = 583 points Again, Black does not need to prove that the white stones are dead. The white stones are dead by definition.Assuming now that 582 black stones have been captured, and assuming a komi 0.5, then the result is a black win by 0.5 points. That means that black must avoid to capture at "a" because she will loose one point and the game (white will simply pass without trying to live) Both players agree to stop the game and now the confirmation phase begin. The problem is now the following : nobody knows the god sequence saying if white stones are really dead under hypothetical play. The result of the game is simply unknown because the humans are not strong enough! BTW I doubt the current computers are able to give us the correct result. ---------- If there were a situation where the stones were defined as dead, but the player thought they they could live if their opponent's play were not perfect, then the player can resume the game. If it is too late for them to play anywhere to make life then it is too late. ---------- Also, I don't believe that a data scientist (a real one) would not be able to implement a determination of life or death status under the Japanese Rules using AI self-play. If the position cannot be shown to be 100% alive according to AI self-play, then the shape is dead. |
|
| Author: | CDavis7M [ Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
RobertJasiek wrote: For further mistakes in Japanese rulesets and their corrections, see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html By the way, there seems to be several misunderstandings here. A misunderstanding of 'dame' at least, which leads to other misunderstandings. |
|
| Author: | John Fairbairn [ Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
Quote: By the way, there seems to be several misunderstandings here. A misunderstanding of 'dame' at least, which leads to other misunderstandings. Wow! I look forward to the torrent from Germany. Get the popcorn in! |
|
| Author: | CDavis7M [ Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
There's also a misunderstanding of which stones are dead and which are alive. I have no idea what rules the players are reading but https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/match/kiyaku/ is pretty clear when it describes "黒六子" (for example) as compared "黒一子". I don't think divination from the Green Goddess is required to understand dame in seki or that territory surrounded by one player's living stones isn't dame. ----------  I have to wonder what Black is trying to prove here. This is not how life and death confirmation works. ---------- Quote: Now, for the purpose of testing for the right side's white string whether it is capturable-alive, Black needs to do both of the following: capture that particular string and prevent White from getting a permanent-stone anywhere on the board. Nope. This also isn't how life and death works. The example doesn't make sense under the Rules. I think the discussion of "enable" shows the culprit for the misunderstanding of the Japanese Rules. Is this [https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Japanese.html] where "enable" is coming from? I am not sure that it a perfect translation (hint: there is none when translating Japanese to English because Japanese particles do not match English words). Perhaps I'd need divination from the Green Goddess to find the right interpretation of 取られても新たに相手方に取られない石を生じうる石, but it is easy enough to see that the "enable" interpretation in "j1989c.html" is wrong. I'm not saying that "would enable" is wrong, though maybe it is misleading, just that j1989c's interpretation of "enable" and its corresponding discussion is misinterpreting the rules. ----------   Quote: 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 dead white stones. Since D is not an eye point, it is a dame. Must be kidding right? The point D is only surrounded by living stones of one player. The other player's dead stones are not part of the consideration. Maybe this misunderstanding is a result of confusion between 囲む and 交点/ 存在/取り.---------- Shouldn't reading comprehension demand recognition of the interpretation that provides consistency? Why pretend that the inconsistent interpretation is right just to make believe that the author is incompetent? |
|
| Author: | Cassandra [ Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
CDavis7M wrote: There's also a misunderstanding of which stones are dead and which are alive. I have no idea what rules the players are reading but https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/match/kiyaku/ is pretty clear when it describes "黒六子" (for example) as compared "黒一子". I don't think divination from the Green Goddess is required to understand dame in seki or that territory surrounded by one player's living stones isn't dame. ---------- I have to wonder what Black is trying to prove here. This is not how life and death confirmation works. Black simply tries to find out whether his just captured single stone in the centre of the board was "alive" or "dead". BTW, this stone is clearly "dead", as capturing it cannot "enable" anything. Quote: ---------- Quote: Now, for the purpose of testing for the right side's white string whether it is capturable-alive, Black needs to do both of the following: capture that particular string and prevent White from getting a permanent-stone anywhere on the board. Nope. This also isn't how life and death works. The example doesn't make sense under the Rules. I think the discussion of "enable" shows the culprit for the misunderstanding of the Japanese Rules. Is this [https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Japanese.html] where "enable" is coming from? I am not sure that it a perfect translation (hint: there is none when translating Japanese to English because Japanese particles do not match English words). Perhaps I'd need divination from the Green Goddess to find the right interpretation of 取られても新たに相手方に取られない石を生じうる石, but it is easy enough to see that the "enable" interpretation in "j1989c.html" is wrong. I'm not saying that "would enable" is wrong, though maybe it is misleading, just that j1989c's interpretation of "enable" and its corresponding discussion is misinterpreting the rules. ---------- Quote: 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 dead white stones. Since D is not an eye point, it is a dame. Must be kidding right? The point D is only surrounded by living stones of one player. The other player's dead stones are not part of the consideration. Maybe this misunderstanding is a result of confusion between 囲む and 交点/ 存在/取り.---------- Shouldn't reading comprehension demand recognition of the interpretation that provides consistency? Why pretend that the inconsistent interpretation is right just to make believe that the author is incompetent? J89's legal text was inconsistent from the very beginning, wasn't it? Do you want to claim that its authors were "incompetent"?  Article 8, Clause 1: Empty points surrounded by the live stones of just one player are called "eye points." Article 8, Clause 4: Eye points surrounded by stones that are alive but not in seki are called "territory," each eye point counting as one point of territory. Article 10, Clause 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" is "EYE POINTS" (conditions apply), which is "EMPTY POINTS" (conditions apply). Thus, "TERRITORY" cannot contain anything else but "EMPTY POINTS". Thus, the "REMOVAL of opposing DEAD STONES" from "TERRITORY" is impossible. The reasoning for this inconsistency is quite simple: The definition of "TERRITORY" at a moment when the game has not yet stopped, comes much too early, and thus does not make sense at all. (The same is true for Article 7, Life & Death.) "Territory" results from the combination of the results of L&D assessement. It cannot be derived earlier than that. |
|
| Author: | Cassandra [ Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ? |
Cassandra wrote: J89's legal text was inconsistent from the very beginning, wasn't it? Article 8, Clause 1: Empty points surrounded by the live stones of just one player are called "eye points." Article 8, Clause 4: Eye points surrounded by stones that are alive but not in seki are called "territory," each eye point counting as one point of territory. Article 10, Clause 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" is "EYE POINTS" (conditions apply), which is "EMPTY POINTS" (conditions apply). Thus, "TERRITORY" cannot contain anything else but "EMPTY POINTS". Thus, the "REMOVAL of opposing DEAD STONES" from "TERRITORY" is impossible. What did J89's authors overlook? -------------------------------- First of all, it goes without saying that Black stones cannot surround Black stones, because "Black stone" is the material surroundings are made of. It's a simple matter of topology. Second, it goes without saying that the amount of Black's territory is independent of what has been surrounded, either empty points or dead White stones or both. Black has eight points of territory. Black has eight points of territory. White's five dead stones do not add to Black's territory, but they reduce White's territory, instead. These dead stones have a value of MINUS five points of White territory. -------------------------------- Solution: "Empty" in Article 8, Clause 1 must be simply deleted. |
|
| Page 4 of 6 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
at 