It is currently Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:06 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GT territory rule
Post #141 Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:15 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
jann wrote:
Cassandra wrote:
Is the corner White territory under GT territory rules(before the earthquake; advantageous loop for the defender only)?
...
The defender has an "advantageous loop", and therefore claims "permanently prohibited ko" for both ko-shapes.

By this logic all double ko sekis die (I think you applied his ideas incorrectly here). Anyway, rules need much more careful (and principled) approach.


Thank you Jann for your comment.
OC I could not answer Thomas because I always try to follow the golden rule in a forum: never answer a post containing a personnal attack or a pure provocation.

Procedure to create "permanently prohibited ko"13:
As soon as a "critical position" is reached the defender14 may (it is not mandatory) claim for creating a "permanently prohibited ko":
1) The defender proves that she can either reach her objective or reach "critical positions" an infinite number of times
2) The defender proves she is able to prevent the attacker to make an infinite number of passes
3) If the attacker agrees to point 1) and 2)15 then the hypothetical play continues up to the following "critical position"
4) As soon as a new critical position is reached a "permanently prohibited ko" is automatically created for the ko capture made by the attacker before the last pass
5) Then the hypothetical play continues taking into account the "permanently prohibited ko" created and the defender may later create another16 "permanently prohibited ko" using again the procedure above.


I cannot imagine Thomas has not seen points 1), 2) and 3) (and the corresponding comments) defining what a advantageaous loop is => the sequence given by him is a pure provocation for a non sense result => no answer.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GT territory rule
Post #142 Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:37 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 380
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 32
Maybe your rules are simply too complicated and prone to honest misunderstandings and application errors.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ -------------------------
$$ | X X O X . X . X O . . |
$$ | . X O O X X X X O . . |
$$ | X X O . O X O O O . . |
$$ | . X O O X X O . . . . |
$$ | X O O . O X O . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O X . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------------------[/go]

In one hand it is true that in normal play black stones in the corner cannot be killed but in the other hand it looks to me that the author of the J89 rule wanted really to see black group dead.

Your example seems defective in the same way as what prompted J89 to revise LD #18 (double ko useless). I assume you mean a more complex version here, similar to the revised J89 one.

Quote:
Obviously this is an advantageous loop. You can note in particular that in normal play white can force a NO RESULT game and, then white can also force the stop of the game. Providing you do not accept an infinite number of resumption then black cannot force a NO RESULT game. In this context, because my idea was really not to change the basis of J89, I chose to give the same result as J89 => black stones are dead.

I'm aware of the pecularities (one-sidedness etc) of moonshine kos and cycles. I also understand your personal instinct for treating B dead. But then your weakness remains: no logical explanation for treating #2 differently to both #1 and #4 at the same time (other combinations have simple and strong logic).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GT territory rule
Post #143 Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:06 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
jann wrote:
Maybe your rules are simply too complicated and prone to honest misunderstandings and application errors.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ -------------------------
$$ | X X O X . X . X O . . |
$$ | . X O O X X X X O . . |
$$ | X X O . O X O O O . . |
$$ | . X O O X X O . . . . |
$$ | X O O . O X O . . . . |
$$ | O O O O O O X . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -------------------------[/go]

In one hand it is true that in normal play black stones in the corner cannot be killed but in the other hand it looks to me that the author of the J89 rule wanted really to see black group dead.

Your example seems defective in the same way as what prompted J89 to revise LD #18 (double ko useless). I assume you mean a more complex version here, similar to the revised J89 one.

Quote:
Obviously this is an advantageous loop. You can note in particular that in normal play white can force a NO RESULT game and, then white can also force the stop of the game. Providing you do not accept an infinite number of resumption then black cannot force a NO RESULT game. In this context, because my idea was really not to change the basis of J89, I chose to give the same result as J89 => black stones are dead.

I'm aware of the pecularities (one-sidedness etc) of moonshine kos and cycles. I also understand your personal instinct for treating B dead. But then your weakness remains: no logical explanation for treating #2 differently to both #1 and #4 at the same time (most other combinations have simple and strong logic).


Oops, CORRECTION.

jann wrote:
  1. Bent4 with remote unremovable threat (or double ko seki)
  2. Bent4 with nearby unremovable threat (or double ko seki)
  3. Moonshine life with remote double ko seki
  4. Moonshine life with nearby double ko seki

Normal play says: All 4 alive.


Taking your point 4) above I do not manage to build an example in which in normal play all groups are alive.
For point 3) it is obvious but for point 4) it is not clear.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GT territory rule
Post #144 Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:22 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 380
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 32
Something like J89 has for bent4, or simply yours modified?
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------
$$ | . X . X X O X . X . X O . . |
$$ | X O X . X O O X X X X O . . |
$$ | O O X X X O . O X O O O . . |
$$ | . O O O X O O X X O . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O . O X O . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O O O O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------[/go]

Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: GT territory rule
Post #145 Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:40 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1197
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 136
Rank: German 1 Kyu
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
OC I could not answer Thomas because I always try to follow the golden rule in a forum: never answer a post containing a personnal attack or a pure provocation.

It's a shame, you seem to love the packaging a lot more than the contents.

After your unspeakable series of Hamete you will probably not expect in all seriousness that I will serve you the solution of your Tsume-Go on the silver tray.
It's like a game of Go: everything is open already, you just have to want to see the hidden clues.

But quite apparently you do NOT want to see. You are probably still too annoyed about the "mirrored" game you LOST with White against me by two points (no komi, no prisoners, only local ko-threats are legal). Common Go sense would have expected a different result...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . O . X O X X X X O . O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | O X X X O X X X X O O O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . X O O O X X X X O . O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | X X O O . O X X X O O O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | O O O . O X . X X O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | X X O O X . X X X O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . X X O O X X X X O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | X . X X X O O O O O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | X X X ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? O O O |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X X X O O O . O |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X X O O X X O O . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X O O . O X X O O |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X O . O X X X X X |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X X X O O X X , X O O |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X . X O X . X X X O . |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X X X O O X X O O O X |
$$ | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X . X X O O X O . X . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

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

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GT territory rule
Post #146 Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:01 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
jann wrote:
Something like J89 has for bent4, or simply yours modified?
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------
$$ | . X . X X O X . X . X O . . |
$$ | X O X . X O O X X X X O . . |
$$ | O O X X X O . O X O O O . . |
$$ | . O O O X O O X X O . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O . O X O . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O O O O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------[/go]

jann wrote:
Something like J89 has for bent4, or simply yours modified?
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------------
$$ | . X . X X O X . X . X O . . |
$$ | X O X . X O O X X X X O . . |
$$ | O O X X X O . O X O O O . . |
$$ | . O O O X O O X X O . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O . O X O . . . . |
$$ | . . . O X O O O O X . . . . |
$$ | . . . O O X X X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------[/go]


Oh yes I see. It looks like the example 16 and it was difficult for me to make a decision. Now I see your point:
If I say that we have to follow the result of normal play then black cannot be killed. But in the other hand, by choosing this example, the author of J89 claimed that the expected result should be that black is dead and, by using the pass-for-ko the author proved she can reach this expected result.
I had to find a way to resolve this problem and be sure it was not that easy.
My proposal was to identify "advantageous" loop and that sounds in my head as something like:
If a player has a advantageous loop and this loop cannot be break in normal play that means that firstly this player cannot lose this game (she can always force a NO RESULT game) and secondly that means that this player can always stops the game (the game cannot continue forever providing the number of resumption is not unlimited). In such specific situation, in GT territory rule, I can say black stones may be considered as dead in order to give a reward in the confirmation phase, reward that normal play fails to recognize (no superko).

The GT territory rule logic becomes:
To respect as far as possible J89 in all situations were an advantageous loop is detected and in all other situations except if the result given by J89 contradicts normal play inside "enable" region.

The point is always the same : the idea is not to change J89 but, because a lot of problems has been detected (in particular by Robert Jasiek) the idea is to present the rule differently to try and resolve these problems. Yes the goal is not that ambitious because in practice I am sure J89 works perfectly. Though my preference goes to an area rule I found interesting to go deeper in J89 to try and propose a different view with the same objective.

jann wrote:
Maybe your rules are simply too complicated and prone to honest misunderstandings and application errors.

I have well noted this point Jann. I am working for a still less ambitious rule with the objective to clarify J89 ambiguities and to be far less complicated.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

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