It is currently Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:01 am

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  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #81 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:22 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 274
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
Cassandra wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
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".
My point is that there is no reason to do this under Life & Death confirmation. So I wonder if the author of "j1989c.html" misunderstands how Life & Death confirmation works.

Cassandra wrote:
BTW, this stone is clearly "dead", as capturing it cannot "enable" anything.
It is questionable whether the rules describe stones having been captured as "enabling". This seems to be another point of misunderstanding.

Cassandra wrote:
J89's legal text was inconsistent from the very beginning, wasn't it? Do you want to claim that its authors were "incompetent"?
The "J98" text is NOT inconsistent. It is not me that wants to claim that it's author is incompetent. It is the author of "j1989c.html" that has claimed that the "J89" author is incompetent. But actually, the "J89" authors were competent. It is the "j1989c.html" author (and others) that cannot comprehend.

Cassandra wrote:
"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.
Listen, like I already said, reading comprehension requires finding the interpretation that actually makes sense. Your interpretation of the rules is obviously incorrect because it leads to this inconsistency. It's not the text of the Japanese Rules that is the problem. Lack of reading comprehension is the problem. It's not a big deal to find an apparent inconsistency in text, but when you do find one, try to look at the context and discover the interpretation that makes everything consistent.

What rules are you even reading? Of course an intersection occupied by the opponent's stone is not territory or an eye because it is not 空点. The stone is taken away and then the intersection where the stone was becomes territory. The stone can be taken away because it is "in" the territory created by the other empty points, which are eyes, which are territory. The "territory" that the dead stones are taken from are not the intersecting points that the dead stones are sitting on. The territory is the other empty points around those dead stones. This interpretation makes sense and is consistent. This is reading comprehension.

And look at the actual rule. It makes sense. 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。Look at 地の中 -- territory [possessive particle] inside, middle, among, within. This means, "among territory." The dead stones are among the other eyes that are territory. They are not sitting on territory. Obviously.

Cassandra wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +------------------
$$ | . X . P P X O . .
$$ | . X P P P X O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | O O O O O O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

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.

No, the solution is reading comprehension, awareness of context, and checking the source if in doubt.
Image
Whites 5 stones dead and they are among 地. So they may be taken off the board as prisoners. Then those points become territory.

The Japanese Rules are consistent.

----------
The rules are not some computer procedure to be followed blindly. Think with human reasoning.

I really don't understand why some people are so determined to not understand the Japanese Rules.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #82 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:43 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 274
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
By the way, the "misunderstandings" in the other topic titled "reverse engineering" Life and Death examples are a result of similar misinterpretation issues.

For reading comprehension, if the life and death example violates your interpretation, it is the interpretation that is wrong, not the life and death example.

Why spend hours and hours creating dozens of diagrams and new terminology in an attempt to reverse engineer what the L&D examples are showing instead of first accepting that they are correct and then seeking to understand the information that the author is presenting from a different interpretation, from the context, and from the source.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #83 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:53 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
By the way, the "misunderstandings" in the other topic titled "reverse engineering" Life and Death examples are a result of similar misinterpretation issues.

For reading comprehension, if the life and death example violates your interpretation, it is the interpretation that is wrong, not the life and death example.

Why spend hours and hours creating dozens of diagrams and new terminology in an attempt to reverse engineer what the L&D examples are showing instead of first accepting that they are correct and then seeking to understand the information that the author is presenting from a different interpretation, from the context, and from the source.

You simply do not want to understand that J89 were a clearly inconsistent attempt to put Japanese understanding of the game of Go into written form from the very beginning.
Simply because the authors were professionals in the game of Go, but not in writing a set of rules.

I could accept any outcome of any L&D Example, if it could be derived by the prodedures given in the legal text of the rules. But the results of several J89's L&D Examples cannot be derived with application of these procedures alone.
Therefore, either the procedures in the legal text do not make any sense, or the L&D Examples.


When putting a Go stone onto the board, these professionals were aware for sure that they had to live with the ACTUAL effect of this move when continuing their game.

It would make no sense whining about the unexpected response from the opponent, who would please be very much tied to the effects that had been thought out in private.
But this it what you do so desperately.

Reverse engineering showed what J89's authors really had in mind, but were unable to formulate on paper.

This includes
Points surrounded by the live stones of just one player are called "eye".
(current version) as what was really meant by J89's author's.

_________________
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  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #84 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:19 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
And look at the actual rule. It makes sense. 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。Look at 地の中 -- territory [possessive particle] inside, middle, among, within. This means, "among territory." The dead stones are among the other eyes that are territory. They are not sitting on territory. Obviously.

Yes, indeed. This it what I tried to explain.
According to J89's legal text, "territory" is "empty points" only.

Just because they "are not sitting on territory", they cannot be taken off the board ("out of territory") as they are.


But all this discussion is useless, as you do not seem to understand the core message.

Defining "territory" for a stage of the game that is earlier than the finalisation of the L&D assessement (as J89 did completely unnecessary) is nonsense.
Dead stones that are located inside opponent's alive groups that do not possess any dame, can be taken off the board as they are, being added to the alive groups owner's prisoners.
ONLY THEREAFTER, "territory" should be defined as all the empty points that are inside alive groups that do not possess any dame.
That's all, but only if it is done at the RIGHT moment.


Contrary to that, J89
-- defines "territory #1" with regard to "eye points",
-- does NOT define, but assumes in your opinion, "territory #2" for taking dead opponent's stones off the board, and
-- utilises "territory #3" and "territory #4" with regard to the calculation of the final score.
Apparently, the authors tried to complicate the matter as much as possible.

_________________
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 #85 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:48 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 274
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
Cassandra wrote:
You simply do not want to understand that J89 were a clearly inconsistent attempt to put Japanese understanding of the game of Go into written form from the very beginning.
Simply because the authors were professionals in the game of Go, but not in writing a set of rules.
You simple to not want to understand that you have misinterpreted the rules. If there are various interpretations and some create inconsistencies while other interpretations provide consistency, it should be obvious which interpretations to accept.
Cassandra wrote:
I could accept any outcome of any L&D Example, if it could be derived by the prodedures given in the legal text of the rules. But the results of several J89's L&D Examples cannot be derived with application of these procedures alone. Therefore, either the procedures in the legal text do not make any sense, or the L&D Examples.
Or maybe you just do not recognize the right way to do it? The proper understanding of the Rules will be consistent with the examples. If you cannot find consistency then there is a problem in your interpretation.
Cassandra wrote:
It would make no sense whining about the unexpected response from the opponent, who would please be very much tied to the effects that had been thought out in private.
But this it what you do so desperately.
These idiomatic errors just confirm to me that the supposed problems in the Japanese Rules are actually misunderstandings.

Cassandra wrote:
Reverse engineering showed what J89's authors really had in mind, but were unable to formulate on paper.
This includes
Points surrounded by the live stones of just one player are called "eye".
(current version) as what was really meant by J89's author's.
Uh.... What? The proper understanding was already formulated on paper. No reverse engineering is required. Simple reading comprehension would have sufficed. The Japanese Rules already say that points surrounded by one player's live stones are eyes. Apparently some people got confused by the dead stones. As I said above, there seems to have been confusion between 囲む and 交点/ 存在/取り.
Cassandra wrote:
According to J89's legal text, "territory" is "empty points" only.
Empty points that are eyes. But yes, I agree.
Cassandra wrote:
Just because they "are not sitting on territory", they cannot be taken off the board ("out of territory") as they are.
Your interpretation is wrong. First of all, the Japanese Rules are written with kanji and kana and so obviously do not say "out of territory." It's clear enough that some translation (maybe a translation of a translation) is causing the Japanese Rules to be misinterpreted. I asked several times which translation people were looking at but no one cares to respond. If you are translating it yourself then just say so.

In my reading the the Japanese Rules, they do not state that dead stones are taken "out of territory." Instead, I read the rule as stating that the stones which are taken are the dead stones among (in the company of, amid, between) territory.
Image
My interpretation of Article 10-1 is that the 5 white stones that are dead and among territory may be taken as prisoners. Why would this interpretation not be correct?

Cassandra wrote:
But all this discussion is useless, as you do not seem to understand the core message. Defining "territory" for a stage of the game that is earlier than the finalisation of the L&D assessement (as J89 did completely unnecessary) is nonsense.
Dead stones that are located inside opponent's alive groups that do not possess any dame, can be taken off the board as they are, being added to the alive groups owner's prisoners.
ONLY THEREAFTER, "territory" should be defined as all the empty points that are inside alive groups that do not possess any dame.
That's all, but only if it is done at the RIGHT moment.
First of all, territory is scored according to Article 10-2, which comes after the dead stones are captured as prisoners by Article 10-1, which comes after life and death is confirmed by Article 9. There is no issue in defining territory in Article 8 since territory is used for scoring which happens after L&D are confirmed. So "'Defining "territory' for a stage of the game that is earlier than the finalisation of the L&D assessement" is not nonsense because counting territory comes after the dead stones are removed.

The Japanese Rules are so simple. Here's how they work. Once the game is stopped after 2 passes, dame are filled and reinforcing moves are played in order to assess the life and death of the stones. Once the players agree on that, eyes that are territory are identified and dead stones next to that territory can be taken as prisoners, thereby uncovering more territory. It's so simple. Once all of the prisoners are taken, they are used to fill the opponent's territory. Only after doing that is territory counted and compared.
Cassandra wrote:
J89
-- defines "territory #1" with regard to "eye points",
-- does NOT define, but assumes in your opinion, "territory #2" for taking dead opponent's stones off the board, and
-- utilises "territory #3" and "territory #4" with regard to the calculation of the final score.
Apparently, the authors tried to complicate the matter as much as possible.
It is not complicated. The idea of competing for territory is given as the premise of the game in Article 1. Because territory is the defining feature of Japanese Go it is no wonder that territory is defined with respect to eyes in Article 8, is used to identify prisoners in article 10-1, and then is finally counted in Article 10-2.

I think it makes sense for territory to be defined before scoring because the distinction between eyes and territory is important when identifying live stones that are seki stones, and in determining that dead stones among eyes cannot be taken as prisoners because they are not among territory.

----------

Back to the original post, it assume that the Japanese Rules have a requirement to prove that stones are dead. I see no such requirement. My reading is that that alive stones are defined and dead stones are just any stone that is not alive. Japanese Go places the burden of Life & Death on proving that stones are alive. Since the premise of the original post is that this burden cannot be met, then the stones under assessment are dead. Much of the discussion here is about whether the seemingly dead stones can be proven to be dead. That is irrelevant in my interpretation of the Japanese Rules.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #86 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:52 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
Simple reading comprehension would have sufficed. The Japanese Rules already say that points surrounded by one player's live stones are eyes.

"Simple reading comprehension" would have told you that "点" is "EMPTY point". And this is what is defined as being an "eye", if surrounded by alive stones of one colour.


However, I am glad that you want to end this fruitless discussion by agreeing that this "EMPTY" was too much.

_________________
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  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #87 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:04 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
Back to the original post, it assume that the Japanese Rules have a requirement to prove that stones are dead. I see no such requirement. My reading is that that alive stones are defined and dead stones are just any stone that is not alive. Japanese Go places the burden of Life & Death on proving that stones are alive. Since the premise of the original post is that this burden cannot be met, then the stones under assessment are dead. Much of the discussion here is about whether the seemingly dead stones can be proven to be dead. That is irrelevant in my interpretation of the Japanese Rules.

In J89, there are three types of stones / groups:

:w1: Stones / groups that are, or can be transformed into, a formation that includes (at least) two eyes. AKA "unconditionally alive".
:w2: All other stones / groups that cannot be captured by the opponent, even if he moves first (or, if captured, "enable" something). AKA "alive in seki".
:b3: All other stones / groups. AKA "dead".

As a matter of course, there is no EXPLICIT requirement to prove that stones / groups are dead.

However, you will have to prove whether these stones / groups do NOT belong EITHER to "w1" OR to "w2". Very unsurprisingly,

NOT ( :w1: OR :w2:) = (NOT :w1:) AND (NOT :w2:) = :b3:

Therefore, being forced to exclude any of the "alive" status of stones / groups for stones / groups of type :b3: is equivalent to proving that these stones / groups are "dead".
This kind of simple mathematics will be valid also in Japan, I am very sure.

_________________
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  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #88 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:29 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
And look at the actual rule. It makes sense. 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。Look at 地の中 -- territory [possessive particle] inside, middle, among, within. This means, "among territory." The dead stones are among the other eyes that are territory. They are not sitting on territory. Obviously.

"中" = inside, interior, middle, centre
"中の" = within, whilst, among

Even your so much loved "among" needs a plenty / crowd, some element is being integral part of (i.e. is located "in the middle" of).
Let {A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H} be a set (of reasons, for example). Then

"A, amongst others, demonstrates XYZ."

does make sense, only if every other element of {B, C, D, E, F, G, H} ALSO demonstrates XYZ, i.e. has the same "properties" (with regard to "XYZ") as {A}.


BTW:
J89's authors utilised "有する" to describe that something is neighboured to something else.
If they really wanted the behaviour you imply, they would have chosen the wording "地を有する相手方の死に石". But they didn't!

BTW #2:
Probably you have already realised that the examples utilised in the commentary for explaining "territory" do NOT include opponent's dead stones!
In all the cases something (even something quite difficult) in NOT displayed EXPLICITLY, J89 utilises some IMPLICIT procedure / reasoning that is NOT mentioned in the legal text of the rules.

_________________
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 #89 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:37 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 274
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
Cassandra wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
Simple reading comprehension would have sufficed. The Japanese Rules already say that points surrounded by one player's live stones are eyes.
"Simple reading comprehension" would have told you that "点" is "EMPTY point". And this is what is defined as being an "eye", if surrounded by alive stones of one colour.
However, I am glad that you want to end this fruitless discussion by agreeing that this "EMPTY" was too much.
There is no problem with the use of 空点 in the Japanese Rules as they are written. I think your misunderstanding comes from a misunderstanding of what 囲む means.
Cassandra wrote:
As a matter of course, there is no EXPLICIT requirement to prove that stones / groups are dead.
However, you will have to prove whether these stones / groups do NOT belong EITHER to "w1" OR to "w2". Very unsurprisingly,
No. The rules are clear. Show that the stones are alive, else they are dead. There is no need to prove that the stones are not alive. Pretending that there is such a requirement leads to the supposed inconsistencies in the original post.
Cassandra wrote:
Even your so much loved "among" needs a plenty / crowd, some element is being integral part of (i.e. is located "in the middle" of).
That is not the only definition of "among" in English and translating Japanese is not so easy because one statement can be said multiple ways in English. The direct translation of Japanese to English doesn't give a sense of the meaning and a meaningful translation to English might only represent some of the meaning in Japanese, or add meanings not present in Japanese.
Cassandra wrote:
BTW:
J89's authors utilised "有する" to describe that something is neighboured to something else.
If they really wanted the behaviour you imply, they would have chosen the wording "地を有する相手方の死に石". But they didn't!
Good on you for reading the text. But when the rules use 有する it is describing something directly adjacent and right next to the stones (i.e., an empty adjacent point or dame of seki stones). In the case of dead stones among territory, many of those dead stones are not directly adjacent or next to the eyes that are territory. So it wouldn't make sense to use 有する. Nice try though.
Cassandra wrote:
BTW #2:
Probably you have already realised that the examples utilised in the commentary for explaining "territory" do NOT include opponent's dead stones!
Why didn't you ctrl+f? Why do that to yourself? Why discredit your other work?

The commentary explaining territory DOES include examples of dead stones being among territory.
Image
Ctrl+f is so easy. White's 1 stone is dead and it is among Black's territory. Black can take the 1 White stone off the board after the game is stopped.

----------

One interpretation is consistent, while other interpretations are not. Reading comprehension is that simple.

If you just like making diagrams because that's your thing, then enjoy yourself. But don't pretend the Japanese Rules can't define territory or dame correctly.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #90 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 10:22 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
CDavis7M wrote:
The commentary explaining territory DOES include examples of dead stones being among territory.
Image
Ctrl+f is so easy. White's 1 stone is dead and it is among Black's territory. Black can take the 1 White stone off the board after the game is stopped.

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!

_________________
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  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #91 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 10:31 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 258
Liked others: 17
Was liked: 30
Rank: panda 4 dan
IGS: kvasir
The post that revived the thread?

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #92 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:24 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
After both players have agreed on the end of the game,


Black's "independently alive" groups surround
-- Bt board points, from which
++ Be board points are empty, and
++ Bo are occupied by "dead" White stones.
Bt = Be + Bo.
Black has Bp prisoners.

Black's score on the board is
Bt + Bo + Bp.

Bt 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!!!

Bt is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of Bo!


White's "independently alive" groups surround
-- Wt board points, from which
++ We board points are empty, and
++ Wo are occupied by "dead" Black stones.
Wt = We + Wo.
White has Wp prisoners.

White's score on the board is
Wt + Wo + Wp.

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


Black is ahead on the board by
Bt + Bo + Bp - (Wt + Wo + Wp) =
Bt + Bo + Bp - Wt - Wo - Wp =
Bt - Wo - Wp - Wt + Bo + Bp =
Bt - Wo - Wp - (Wt - Bo - Bp) =
Bt4s - Wt4s

Wo - Wp 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.
Bo - Bp 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.

Bt4s is the RESULTING Black territory, according to Article 10, Clause 2, second half-sentence.
Wt4s 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.

_________________
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 #93 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:54 am 
Oza

Posts: 3089
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4112
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).

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #94 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:30 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

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

_________________
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 #95 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:49 pm 
Oza

Posts: 3089
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4112
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?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #96 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:07 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 1001
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 169
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #97 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:08 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

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

_________________
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 #98 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:14 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 274
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
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.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #99 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:01 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 274
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
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).
Image

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., https://lifein19x19.com/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:
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 :b2: as a "newly created stone that cannot be captured".
But :b2: 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.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?
Post #100 Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:12 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

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


:w1: TERRITORY is NOT the "territory" that is defined later in Article 8.
:w2: MOVE is no longer part of the current legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly.
:w3: 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.


:w4: The meaning of CAN has been discussed, but is specified in the Commentary.
:w5: 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."


:w6: EMPTY POINT is defined here.
:w7: 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.


:w8: 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.


:w9: CAN is confusing here, as the second sentence declares the "cannot".
:w10: This ALTERNATELY here might NOT be the "alternately" utilised earlier in Article 2.
:w11: 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."


:w12: 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").
:w13: ENABLE is no longer part of the current legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly.
:w14: 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).
:w15: 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.

:w16: AFTER PASSING ONCE FOR THAT PARTICULAR is no longer part of the current legal text, as far as I understand the Japanese original correctly.
:w17: Applying the second sentence on several L&D Examples will NOT MATCH the intended results given.
:w18: 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.


:w19: TERRITORY, as defined here, is NOT the "territory" referenced to in Article 1.
:w20: 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!!!
:w21: EYE POINT might have been a somewhat "unlucky" translation.
:w22: 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.


:w23: 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."

:w24: 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.


:w25: 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."

:w26: 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.
:w27: 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.


:w28: 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.

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

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