It is currently Sun May 26, 2024 7:26 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #81 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:04 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
RobertJasiek wrote:
Therefore, after n confirmation phases and resumptions, in resumed alternation eventually White must use plays to approach and remove the single black stones as follows...
That is a resolution. The Japanese Rules are so robust that they can ever handle this practically impossible situation with ease.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #82 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:35 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 35
Liked others: 2
Was liked: 1
Well, let's change the thread title to "Really forbid a move after a pass during the game is BAD board game design" ;-)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #83 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:42 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 916
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 170
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
jmeinh wrote:
kvasir wrote:
Now if you correctly claim a draw by threefold repetition and the arbiter is standing right next to you but rules against the claim, what happens is exactly this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P0oKbJcQj0

Yes, in situations like this, a rule of this kind is difficult to apply.
And if it is true (which was claimed somewhere else, as far as I remember) that the superko rule in area rules is hardly ever followed in practice, I don't really see any need to continue thinking about an analogue of this chess rule in Go.

So much for the practice-oriented point of view.

From other points of view, for example that of making Go accessible to AI, the advantages of superko rules far outweigh the disadvantage of additional "mental" bookkeeping.


I won't dispute that superko can have some merits but it should not be an idle point that rules need to be something people are willing and able to use in practice.

Make the game more accessible to AI? Well obviously end the game after a fixed number of moves -- easy, simple, elegant and hardly requires more than two lines of code. Early stopping is used in practice.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #84 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:49 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
John Fairbairn wrote:
They ARE allowed, and there ARE issues.
Just to be clear, my point is that the Japanese Rules allow "alternating play" during the game and do not allow passing during the game. The Japanese Rules clearly allow (multiple) passes to resolve End-of-Game and Life & Death situations. I have no issue with a pass at this point. It's clearly in the Japanese Rules.

But I have seen no allowance in the Japanese Rules, no Japanese tradition, and no common sense reason why the rules must allow "pass in the middle of the game because I am so far ahead" as was suggested early on in this discussion. Presenting a practically impossible situations (as others have done) which can be handled by the End-of-Game and Life & Death rules after stopping the game is not a common sense reason to prove that passing must be allowed during the game.

John Fairbairn wrote:
Black thinks the game is over and says Pass. Under your conception, White is not then allowed to play at once at A. That rule would not only be unthinkable to a pro, but it would go against one of the major tenets of Japanese go (and tradition) which they like to repeat endlessly as an advantage of their rules over Chinese rules.
If Black thinks that he doesn't have any move left to play and white disagrees about the Life & Death status, then this is exactly the type of situation that is intended to be covered under Article 9-2 when confirming Life & Death. There is no "pass" needed. If the definition of Live Stone is not convincing, White can demand resumption and Black can pass.
John Fairbairn wrote:
Under your conception, White is not then allowed to play at once at A. That rule would not only be unthinkable to a pro, but it would go against one of the major tenets of Japanese go (and tradition) which they like to repeat endlessly as an advantage of their rules over Chinese rules. Namely, they believe that knowing whether a fill-in move is necessary is a mark of skill (reading ability - reading the moves, not reading the Laws of Go). They pour scorn on the Chinese rule that lets you fill in your own territory at no cost.
This is my understanding of the Japanese tradition as well. But for me, it supports my understanding that the most Japanese resolution for this gameplay situation is to not have the move played at all during the game. If black does not want to play at 'A' during the game, White can decide to proceed with filling point 'A' and its neighbor as dame, which will allow Black to recognize if a reinforcing play is needed. Everything works as it should.

By the way, 手入れ was the first term I looked at in the Nihon Kiin 小事典

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #85 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:51 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
jmeinh wrote:
Well, let's change the thread title to "Really forbid a move after a pass during the game is BAD board game design" ;-)
That would be bad rules design. The Japanese Rules do not have this rule. The Japanese Rules allow alternating play. The Japanese Rules do not allow a play after a pass during normal game-play but do not explicitly forbid it. As with all game rules, anything not allowed by the rules is prohibited.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #86 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:00 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
jmeinh wrote:
From other points of view, for example that of making Go accessible to AI, the advantages of superko rules far outweigh the disadvantage of additional "mental" bookkeeping.
Everything is a trade off. Implementing super-ko in a computer program is good computer program design while implementing super-ko in a human-played board game is bad design. The improvement in a computer program outweighs the drawbacks. But just because a rule works better for computer analysis of game-play does not mean that the rule is a better rule for human game-play. In a tournament, these tradeoffs change and having a clear winner might be enough of an improvement to warrant the rule. But tournament rules should not be the same rules for normal play. Most humans would like to keep their phones in their pocket during normal play.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #87 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:03 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1312
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
My own view is that nearly all Japanese rules problems derive from amateurs trying to use professional rules. They are trying to insert a nail with a Swiss Army knife when all you need is a hammer - and common sense.

Let me try to discuss in what sense J89 are "professional".

In my understanding, J89 were primarily designed to be applied on games between two (Japanese) professional Go players.

In my own words, the base lines for creating this revision of the J49 rules were:
(1) Comply with Japanese tradition.
(2) Find consistent solutions for all the earlier rules disputes in Japan, and prevent future cases.
(3) Find a compelling solution for use outside of Japan (by professionals and amateurs alike).

Being professionals in playing the game of Go, the authors succeeded with (1) and (2).

However, they failed with (3), lacking the last five percent of professional approach (/ attitude) to the creation of a set of rules.
They simply overlooked (being no amateurs) that things can happen in amateur games that professionals wouldn't even dream of. They also overlooked (being no Westerners) that Western attitude (being not aware of (1) and (2)) demands to take the legal text of the rules literally.

On the other hand, some responses in the Western world have been typically Western in that common sense has been completely left out (along with knowledge of probability theory).

But was it all a drama? Of course not.
After all, there are several approaches to creating rule sets based on Western thought patterns.

Are there any secret recipes as to how you can be sure to win under ruleset A against a player who has only known ruleset B until now? I don't think so. Therefore, the differences between the various rulesets can be only marginal, not affecting the character of the game.

--------------------------------------

In another thread I already mentioned that no AI on this planet would be able to solve Igo Hatsuyôron 120. Which is solely due to the fact that they were not designed for this purpose.
No AI would dream of this board position, just because it was not encountered while training the neural network.

But is this a drama? Of course not.
People still use the programmes for the purposes these have been developed for.

To overcome the above mentioned "weakness", lightvector used an approach to include positions of Igo Hatsuyôron 120 as material for the training of a specialised neural network.
This not only resulted in KataGo's ability to solve the problem, but also in an improvement on the (at that time) best known solution sequence.
Friday9i later continued the training of the specialised network, also with training material that emerged from our further analyses.


However, even with KataGo's specialised network, there was no guarantee that the correct continuation of a subvariation, which included several mistaken moves, would be found!
During the training, the neural network had simply learned to avoid these multiple-mistake-sequences, and therefore lacked sufficient experience with what might happen thereafter.

But was this a drama? Of course not.
We got new insights into the problem, which would have been unrevealed without.
Friday9i executed some kind of "enforced" training with these positions, resulting in KataGo's correct handling afterwards.


However, even with KataGo's specialised network, there was no guarantee that the correct continuation of a subvariation, which started with a "simple" (according to human understanding) valid change in the order of correct moves (but which added a lot of uncertainty to the position in AI understanding), would be found!
During the training, the neural network had simply learned to avoid that "too noisy" path, and therefore lacked sufficient experience with what might happen thereafter.

But was this a drama? Of course not.
We got new insights into the problem, which would have been unrevealed without.
Friday9i executed some kind of "enforced" training with this position, resulting in KataGo's correct handling afterwards.

--------------------------------------

There seems to be a general understanding that an AI only delivers "good" results for the application cases for which it has been trained. And that the quality of the results reflects the quality of the training material.

It would be advisable to apply this knowledge to the assessment of rulesets as well.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)


Last edited by Cassandra on Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #88 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:08 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c :b5: pass, :b7: pass
$$ ---------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . 0 . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 . , . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . 8 . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------[/go]

Here is an example of non-alternating play during the game. This is the situation that the Japanese Rules do not allow.

Or, can anyone try to find where the Japanese rules allow this type of non-alternating play during game-play, not during life-and-death confirmation or end-of-game dame filling & reinforcement. Or try to find some Japanese tradition of playing moves and then deciding to pass for a bit to allow non-alternating play, but then picking alternating play back up again.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #89 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:14 am 
Oza

Posts: 3665
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4641
The rules of go MUST be badly designed, since they give such a field day to rules mavens.

However, back to our muttons and the question of whether a single pass ends ordinary play (it doesn't). The Nihon Ki-in published a pamphlet in 2005 on go etiquette. It was in thee form of readers' questions and they gave the answers.

One question related to a game with clocks and sudden death. The reader had had the experience of playing a game in which he felt he was comfortably ahead, although he was very short of time and his opponent wasn't. The game came down to the last half-point and the reader said, "O-tsugi kudasai" (Please connect the ko) which is a common way to end the game in Japanese, and is equivalent to saying Pass.

But the opponent saw an opportunity to win the game on time and refused to connect but played somewhere else. The reader didn't say how his game finished, but he was clearly highly peeved.

The professional answering, Kudo Norio 9-dan, said this was an "egregious violation of good manners" (悪質なマナー違反) and the player should summon the referee, and if he, Kudo, were the referee he would declare the game an instant loss for the opponent. No mention of two passes, no mention of going on to a confirmation phase. Just "You're a lout, you're out."

This loutish behaviour is common in Europe, and I imagine everywhere else. Kudo suggested the way to avoid it, apart from calling the referee, was to ensure you left yourself about 5 minutes. The more obvious solution, to use byoyomi, has been slow in taking hold in Japan. He did NOT say, "You said Pass, so the game (ordinary play) was over."

Having met Kudo, and knowing he has refereed title games, I would trust him to know more about the rules than we do, even if he is "only a Japanese 9-dan."

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #90 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:17 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 35
Liked others: 2
Was liked: 1
CDavis7M wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:
Under your conception, White is not then allowed to play at once at A. That rule would not only be unthinkable to a pro, but it would go against one of the major tenets of Japanese go (and tradition) which they like to repeat endlessly as an advantage of their rules over Chinese rules. Namely, they believe that knowing whether a fill-in move is necessary is a mark of skill (reading ability - reading the moves, not reading the Laws of Go). They pour scorn on the Chinese rule that lets you fill in your own territory at no cost.
This is my understanding of the Japanese tradition as well. But for me, it supports my understanding that the most Japanese resolution for this gameplay situation is to not have the move played at all during the game. If black does not want to play at 'A' during the game, White can decide to proceed with filling point 'A' and its neighbor as dame, which will allow Black to recognize if a reinforcing play is needed. Everything works as it should.
Perhaps in this way Black can recognize that a reinforcing move is needed and be "forced" to do so, but at least this does not work as it should. Because part of the essence of Go as we know it is to have to make tactical decisions of this kind during the game - and not in a phase of collective analysis.
If the Japanese tradition really wanted it that way, that would be a good reason to break with that part of the tradition.


Last edited by jmeinh on Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #91 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:47 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1312
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 153
Rank: German 1 Kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
The Nihon Ki-in published a pamphlet in 2005 on go etiquette.

Especially inhabitants of the Western World should be very well aware that mankind is extremely good in finding and fully utilising legal loopholes.

There is no stopping water from flowing into the ocean. If one path is blocked, it will find another one.

Trying to prevent abuse of a legal text is like Don Quixote's fight against the windmills. There is not enough paper on this planet for an attempt in this regard (which would be typically Western).

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #92 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:23 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
John Fairbairn wrote:
However, back to our muttons and the question of whether a single pass ends ordinary play (it doesn't)...
The game came down to the last half-point and the reader said, "O-tsugi kudasai" (Please connect the ko) which is a common way to end the game in Japanese, and is equivalent to saying Pass...
But the opponent saw an opportunity to win the game on time and refused to connect but played somewhere else...
He did NOT say, "You said Pass, so the game (ordinary play) was over."
Of course Kido did not say that because the game was resumed without rules formalities. This situation where one player thinks the game is over and is ready to proceed with stopping the game ("O-tsugi kudasai"), but the other player thinks that life and death is still an issue (or time is an issue) IS an end-of-game resumption but without formally following the 2nd pass, a resumption demand, and a pass upon resumption.

Making a non-alternative play in response to your opponent declaring that they are ready to proceed with Life & Death confirmation is the same as agreeing to proceed, not agreeing with Life % Death, demanding resumption, the opponent actually passing their turn, and then playing your non-alternative play.
==========
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c :b5: pass, :b7: pass
$$ ---------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . 0 . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 . , . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . 8 . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------[/go]

I bet if we asked Kido whether a player could pass on moves 5 and 7 of a 60 move game just "because", he would have said "No."

Apparently the Japanese tradition does not require strict adherence to the rules as long as there is an understanding between the players. The players can end phases and begin phases of the game without mention of Article 9 or confirming life group by group, as long as they understand each other (or can hear each other without tinnitus). Still, when it comes down to it, the rules are there.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #93 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 12:14 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 418
Liked others: 9
Was liked: 83
Rank: kgs 5 kyu
KGS: Pio2001
CDavis7M wrote:
Or, can anyone try to find where the Japanese rules allow this type of non-alternating play during game-play, not during life-and-death confirmation or end-of-game dame filling & reinforcement. Or try to find some Japanese tradition of playing moves and then deciding to pass for a bit to allow non-alternating play, but then picking alternating play back up again.


Article 9.1 When a player passes his move and his opponent passes in succession, the game stops.

It implies that when a player passes his move and his opponent doesn't pass in succession, the game doesn't stop.
Moreover :
Commentary on article 2.2 To declare that the game should stop, a player passes. If his opponent passes in succession, the game stops and neither player can play next.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #94 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 1:18 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
Pio2001 wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
Or, can anyone try to find where the Japanese rules allow this type of non-alternating play during game-play, not during life-and-death confirmation or end-of-game dame filling & reinforcement. Or try to find some Japanese tradition of playing moves and then deciding to pass for a bit to allow non-alternating play, but then picking alternating play back up again.

Article 9.1 When a player passes his move and his opponent passes in succession, the game stops.
It implies that when a player passes his move and his opponent doesn't pass in succession, the game doesn't stop.
Moreover :
Commentary on article 2.2 To declare that the game should stop, a player passes. If his opponent passes in succession, the game stops and neither player can play next.
I read the commentary different. 着手放棄(パス)は、放棄者の対局停止宣言であり、続いて相手方もパスした場合は「対局の停止」となり、次の着手を行うことはできない。(第九条1項参照). I read it as stating that the abandoning play (not a pass but is commonly referred to as a pass) IS a declaration to stop. Which happens if both players abandon their move. The concept of an abandoned move (着手放棄) cannot be the same as a pass (パス) otherwise the rules designers would have just said pass.

And we agree that there is no actual rule that allows the player to pass, there is only the rule that the game stops if both players pass. So of course passing is allowed. But in game rules, just because an action is allowed in one situation does not mean that action is allowed in other situations.

Of course the reader should consider the context and read between the lines. So I would agree with you except that allowing "passing your turn" (not in the rules) would violate "alternating play" (one of the only rules for "playing") and "passing your turn" is a different concept from an abandoned move. Also, if there were some situation that necessitated passing, I would of course agree. But there is none.
----------
John Fairbairn wrote:
I've said this already, but have been ignored, so I'll try again here: in the sequence of ordinary play White plays, Black plays, White passes, Black is now allowed to play at once. No shilly-shallying about two passes and resuming play.
Thinking more about this, it reminds me of Japanese grammar and formality, which I am trying to learn. In Japanese you can make a very long statement, but if the context is clear, you can drop a bunch of words. And if formality is not required you can drop more. Of course, many languages can drop context, but Japanese also can drop formality.

So, it seems to me that when White plays, Black play, White passes, and the context of the game is that White is declaring that they want to stop the game because the game has arrived at a plausible end-state, then black may indeed play at once without the formality of passing and then demanding resumption before his play. It seems more polite and more elegant to not demand the formality.
----------
All I'm saying is that I the Japanese rules don't allow (unnecessary and maybe even rude) passing before the end-of-game. I acknowledge that a play can happen after a pass in a plausible end-of-game state.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #95 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 2:58 pm 
Oza

Posts: 3665
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4641
Quote:
I read the commentary different. I read it as stating that the abandoning play (not a pass but is commonly referred to as a pass) IS a declaration to stop. I don't read this as saying that a player may pass to declare the stop of the game. The concept of an abandoned move (着手放棄) is not the same as a pass (パス) otherwise the rules designers would have just said pass.


How you, or DeepL or whatever it's called, read it is irrelevant. It's how the Japanese read it that matters. A couple of points that you seem to be missing linguistically:

(1) sengen - you have latched onto one the word 'declaration' and sometimes seem to take a typical English nuance: that something has been unilaterally decided. But, whichever way you take it, what is going on in the Japanese is simply that something is being enunciated, made known. Use a Japanese dictionary. Kojien, for example, will tell that it refers to the case where "an individual, organisation or state expresses [hyoumei] its own intention, claim, plicy or such like to outside world." It is a unilateral action.

(2) In comment 2.2, deari is in the continuative form, so the following "if" applies to that clause as well. The English offered by Pio omits and 'also' - if the opponents also makes pass - so the result in the next clause comes from a bilateral action.

(3) The result just mentioned (cessation of play) is described by using the verb phrase 'to naru' (i.e. not 'dearu'). ... to naru (becomes) implies 'changing so as to be'. In other words, the change of state (from ordinary play) takes effect only after the two conditions (Pass 1, Pass 2) just mentioned have been met.

(4) You are fond of the phrase 'abandoned move'. That sounds strange to me. What the Japanese houki refers to is relinquishing the right to put a move on the board ('putting' is what chaku implies). It is not an assertion that play is abandoned as in "match abandoned". Chakushu, incidentally, is a go technical term here. In the normal language it means 'to start'. In a go technical dictionary it is defined as 'Playing a stone. Putting down a move."

(5)
Quote:
The concept of an abandoned move (着手放棄) cannot be the same as a pass (パス) otherwise the rules designers would have just said pass.
No, because "pasu" is a colloquialism and this is a legal text. In real life next to nobody would say chakushi houki, a very stilted phrase. It is, however, required in a legal context, if for no other reason than to show which of the many senses the borrowing pasu is being used in (and the go sense is by far one of the least common).

(6) Article 2 allows plays to put stones (chakushu) on the board alternately. Comment 1.1 helpfully tells us that the alternation of putting moves on the board is a RIGHT, i.e. not an obligation. That is, on your turn, you can do something else. I have already told you that the debate about whether a board move is a right or an obligation raged for many years in Japan (that is the context, but no context is really needed for this point). In J89 the Nihon Ki-in and Kansai Ki-in nailed their colours firmly to the mast: putting a stone on the board is a RIGHT. In America you have the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean you have to go out and buy a Kalashnikov.

Quote:
Thinking more about this, it reminds me of Japanese grammar and formality, which I am trying to learn. In Japanese you can make a very long statement with many details while providing the sufficient level of formality for the situation. But when the context is clear, you can drop a bunch of words, and when formality is not required you can do away with even more works. And in Japanese writing you can even drop the hiragana from the kanji. Of course, many languages can drop context, but Japanese also can drop formality.


I think it's best to draw a veil over this paragraph and wait until you have learned some more Japanese. The rules text is in standard dearu neutral form as is usual for legal and technical texts, and I've been translating that kind of stuff for part of my bread and butter for over 50 years. And furigana is used only for children's books, names or rare kanji. It has nothing to do with formality. Reading characters is not very hard if you are a grown-up Japanese.

(7)
Quote:
So, it seems to me that when White plays, Black play, White passes, and the context is that White is declaring that they want to stop the game because the game has arrived at a plausible end-state, then black may indeed play at once without the formality of passing and then demanding resumption before his play. It seems more polite and more elegant to not demand the formality.


My apologies if I am misreading what you say, but let us assume instead that they do replace the toujours la politesse and elegance with formality (although in Japan formality is usually a necessary part of politeness). The actions would then be White plays, Black plays, White passes, Black passes, Black demands a resumption. You then have Black making first move in the confirmation phase. But that is not allowed. The person making the request for resumption has to let the other side have the right to the first move in the confirmation phase, no?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #96 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 3:40 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 916
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 170
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
Anyone that has played Go with anyone that played Go with anyone that knew how to play Go knows that you can forgo your turn to play at the end the game. While it can be a valid question how to go about that (i.e. saying "pass") the details just aren't spelled out like that in the NHK rules. If you want an answer to if you are allowed to forgo your turn in the middle of the game to spite your opponent it probably depends more on your intention (or perceived intention) rather than anything else.

The NHK rules do not have much to say about many things -- why not just accept this? I don't see the use in trying to read between the lines and interpret the cultural context when the question is something so remote from anything that the rules document actually says anything about.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #97 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:00 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
kvasir wrote:
Anyone that has played Go with anyone that played Go with anyone that knew how to play Go knows that you can forgo your turn to play at the end the game. While it can be a valid question how to go about that (i.e. saying "pass") the details just aren't spelled out like that in the NHK rules.
I agree. All I'm saying is that the rules don't say that you can pass in the beginning/middle of the game.

I'm confused about the backlash. It's not like I'm trying to argue something completely bogus like saying that the Japanese rules are bad because dead stones in would-because territory actually can't be captured in the end of the game because seki doesn't make territory. Anyone who has spoken with someone that has reading comprehension would understand that that's not how the rules work.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #98 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:13 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 916
Liked others: 22
Was liked: 170
Rank: panda 5 dan
IGS: kvasir
CDavis7M wrote:
I'm confused about the backlash. It's not like I'm trying to argue something completely bogus like saying that the Japanese rules are bad because dead stones in would-because territory actually can't be captured in the end of the game because seki doesn't make territory. Anyone who has spoken with someone that has reading comprehension would understand that that's not how the rules work.


It is just the line of investigation that I think is almost futile, the way of trying to read something into words and between the lines. I don't object to the question only that the method used to answer it doesn't appear likely to be fruitful.

I am not sure what you are getting at about dead stones in would-be-territory. Here the rules actually state a condition for when dead stones can be removed from the board at the end of the game, this condition does not allow all dead stones to be removed, and example 25 has dead stones that are not allowed to be removed from the board at the end of the game. I'd be curious to know how you understand example 25 and the commentary on article 8.

Really, I don't know what you mean when you say someone is trying to argue that dead stones can't be captured because seki doesn't make territory. Maybe you have misunderstood something I said in a different topic to the effect that we can consider not accepting life and death confirmation when it leads to dead stones that are not in seki not being removed from the board? I said (or tried to say) something to the effect that this could possibly be considered a contradiction, that is to be too bogus to be accepted.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #99 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:51 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
John Fairbairn wrote:
How you, or DeepL or whatever it's called, read it is irrelevant. It's how the Japanese read it that matters.
I use DeepL for reading the historic notes on game commentaries. So I already know that it concatenates phrases and drops whole statements. When I'm reading the Japanese Rules I use jisho.org and 用語小事典 (日本棋院). Unfortunately, 広辞苑 is ¥9,900, which is even more than Games of Shuei. So I'll put my money to better use. As far as "unilateral," "bilateral," and 着手 as a go term, we are on the same page. But I did learn of the "continuative form." Thank you for this discussion of Japanese because I found the difference in interpretation:
John Fairbairn wrote:
(4) You are fond of the phrase 'abandoned move'. That sounds strange to me. What the Japanese houki refers to is relinquishing the right to put a move on the board ('putting' is what chaku implies). It is not an assertion that play is abandoned as in "match abandoned". Chakushu, incidentally, is a go technical term here. In the normal language it means 'to start'.
My understanding of 放棄 comes from jisho (it's not in yogo shojiten). Jisho gives the definition of 放棄 as "abandonment; renunciation; resignation; abdication (responsibility, right [ie failure to fulfill responsibility, right])." None of these terms suggest handing something over, but "relinquish" can definitely have that meaning in some cases. So if that is the case here then I was mistaken. Free Jisho.org can't compete with ¥9,900 worth of Kojien.

Unfortunately, calling 着手 is a "right" goes back to making it confusing as "relinquishing a right to play" seems more like "failure to fulfill a right to play," rather than relinquishing your play to your opponent. I imagine that the debate between "right" or "obligation" involved Life and Death. In which case, all of the passing for Life and Death was moved to the "confirmation" stage after stopping the game. There, playing is not an obligation. In fact, passing is an obligation. So does the statement that playing is a "right" just mean that this "right vs obligation" debate has been settled (using life and death confirmation) or does it really mean that a player can pass, pass, pass in the middle of the game? Needless passing doesn't seem be part of a contest of skill.

Update: I checked 5 (free) Japanese to English dictionaries online and most give the same definition as Jisho. But Cambridge does mention relinquishing a right:
Quote:
放棄

noun

(ほうき)

捨て去ること
abandonment
責任を放棄する
to relinquish one’s responsibility
Synonym
放り出す

This is failure to fulfill. Not handing over.

Going deeper:
https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A8%A9%E5%88%A9

Now reading Japanese online discussion about the権利 to play certain moves in a given board position, which is basically just 先手 (their words)
... Well I'm done. Further back then when I started.
https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/sitepolicy/link.html


Last edited by CDavis7M on Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Superko rules and ko-cycles rules are BAD board game des
Post #100 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:22 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 714
Liked others: 109
Was liked: 138
Rank: Shokyu
Universal go server handle: CDavis7M
kvasir wrote:
Maybe you have misunderstood something I said
No, it wasn't you. I should have been more clear. It was someone else's bogus claim. And the bogus statement wasn't about actual seki, but pretend-seki in an attempt to discredit the Japanese Rules. I was on Sensei's Library and went down a rabbit hole. Maybe you can guess.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 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