It is currently Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:10 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Post #21 Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:38 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 400
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 35
Cassandra wrote:
jann wrote:
fails in example #5 if the right side of the seki have more layers.
What is the intended result GIVEN BY / INCLUDED IN J89?

This is why emojis were invented: deadpan jokes work less in writing. :)

If you only care about the included examples in vanilla and don't mind failing anywhere else (even in the same examples after slight complication), why bother with the disguise of logical rules at all? Just include 25 precedents and done.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Post #22 Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:48 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
jann wrote:
Just include 25 precedents and done.

This is what I suggested much earlier. Especially for those who have not managed to put a non-contradictory framework over these cases.

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

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents
Post #23 Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:28 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
RobertJasiek wrote:
How / with which principles have you derived / created the German version?
Continued.


Approach #2: Retention of the internal structure as far as possible. Addition of clarifying notes where necessary or appropriate.

J89's handling of "move" (i.e. Articles 3 to 6) follows a PASSIVE approach:

(( Text in italics = exaggerated / striking ))

:w1: Article 3 teaches us that stacking stones is not an activity within the game of Go.
:w2: Otherwise, everything is permitted that does not result in the suffocation of one's own stones.
:w3: Article 4 explains what is essential to prevent the suffocation of stones.
:w4: And, not very surprisingly, realises that choked stones have no place on the board.
:w5: Article 5 announces the result of empirical studies according to which stones run out of air the sooner the longer they have been on the board.

:w6: Article 6 prevents the endless repetition of the same two moves over and over again.


Letting :w1: aside, a more ACTIVE approach would be imaginable:

:b2: Everything is permitted that does not contradict :b4: or :b5:.
:b3: If a player's move smothers opposing stones, they are taken off the board as prisoners.
:b4: It is forbidden to smother one's own stones. This does not apply for :b3:.

:b5: Ko rule as :w6: above.

----------

You will easily realise that Article 3 does NOT include any reference to the second kind of "taboo-points" (i.e. empty point in a ko-shape immediately after capture). This is one of J89's OBVIOUS mistakes.
I have added a corresponding supplement.

Article 4 states that a special kind of stones cannot "exist" on the board. Accepted, but what will we do when such stone has been placed on the board?
I have added a corresponding supplement that EXPLICITLY repeats what can be implicitly concluded from the combination of Articles 3 and 4.

The supplement to Article 5 is due to the ambiguity of "to capture" in English.
As a matter of course, "capturing" has the same meaning in J89 as it has e.g. in the game of Chess (e.g. "The white queen captured a black rook."): "taking something off the board".
However, "capturing" during ACTIVE PLAY also has the meaning of "fencing opponent's stones in, so that they can neither escape nor achieve a living shape".

----------

To be continued ... (simply follow the link)

_________________
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)


Last edited by Cassandra on Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Post #24 Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:02 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 272
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
John Fairbairn wrote:
Now, what about contexts where both 目 and 眼 come up together. Meari menashi 眼あり眼なし is one example. 目 does not come up in the phrase, but in the position there will also be liberties, or dame 駄目. If you mix up your two me's you'll never learn how to win a semeai (semi-eye, geddit!!?).
アル ユー タキン トウ め?
Image


John Fairbairn wrote:
If you say contemptuously that a player has been reduced to a mere two eyes after a bout of bullying (ijime) you say (with optional sneer) he has 'me futatsu'.
Then, better to say "me o futatsu kudasai" first?

John Fairbairn wrote:
the Nihon Ki-in dictionary of technical terms, which you would take to be a repository of definitions, "defines" 地 simply as "地所.実利."
Does that beat the definition of 本筋 being 本物の筋 (found after reading your post about Honte).

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

To be fair to the original poster, I searched the jiten under "き" and discovered that in fact, the Nihon Kiin does not define rules.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Post #25 Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:07 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 272
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
Cassandra wrote:
Just concentrate on the intended L&D status of the groups in question. Can it be reached or not by applying the procedures given?
Article 7-2 is a (潜在的) rationale for the definitions. It's definitely not a procedure. But yes, all of the L&D examples can be understood from the rules, commentary, and other examples. Glad to clear this stoppage.

There's only one statement in the Japanese Rules that might be deemed a failure -- the part about 欧米囲碁愛好家.

Also, don't forget to translate this part:

新ルールは、日本の囲碁の特色である感性の豊かさをいささかも損なうことなく、合理性の追求と個別、例外規定を排した普遍的かつ簡素な条文から成る品位の高い規約であると自負している。また、一般囲碁愛好家にとってもルールの理解が容易であり、従来ともすれば生じたトラブルの余地も解消し、今まで通りの手法で囲碁を楽しむことができるものと信じる次第である。

いずれにせよ、永い歴史と伝統を有する日本の囲碁が、今回の改定でその合理性が確立された事は囲碁ファンの一人として誠に喜ばしい限りであるが、知能的競技として芸術的価値の極めて高い文化資産を、世界に又未来永劫に伝える為、このルールと共に、礼儀、品位が遵守され、良識と相互信頼の元に対局するという日本囲碁の精神が広く囲碁界に普及されることを切望してやまない。

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents
Post #26 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:05 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
RobertJasiek wrote:
How / with which principles have you derived / created the German version?
Continued.


Approach #3: Topology of "useless points".

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

This is J89's L&D Example 24, which comment explains the effect of "useless points" on the determination of "territory", using a two-stage ko as an examplary case.
We will limit ourselves here on "useless points", and therefore neither discuss L&D, nor "territory", nor two-step ko.

There are three different types of "useless points":
:w1: "Two-sided boundary points"
:w2: "One-sided boundary points"
:b3: "Unplayable useless points"

Please note that these three types can NOT be handled DIFFERENTLY in J89, as the same technical term is used to identify them.
I refrained from adjusting the interpretations, so as not to make things too confusing.

----------

"Two-sided boundary points"

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

The "useless point" :ex: is RIGHT NEXT to the marked stones :wc: :bc: of both sides, which are "independently alive".

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

J89 mentiones something like '"useless points" next to them "ALONG THE LINES OF THE BOARD"'. What does "along the lines of the board" mean?
The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from Black's point of view.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | . O . O . O . O X . . | . O . O . O . O X . . | . O . O . O . O X . . | . O . O . O . O X . . | . O . O . O . O X . . |
$$ | O X O O O O O O X . . | O # O O O O O O X . . | O # O O O O O O X . . | O X O O O O O O X . . | O X O O O O O O X . . |
$$ | X X X M X O X X X . . | # # # M # O X X X . . | # # # . # O X X X . . | X X X . X O X X X . . | X X X . X O X X X . . |
$$ | X . X X X O X . . . . | # . # # # O X . . . . | # M # # # O X . . . . | X T X X X O X . . . . | X . X X X O X . . . . |
$$ | . X O O O X X . . . . | . X O O O X X . . . . | M X O O O X X . . . . | T # O O O X X . . . . | . # O O O X X . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | M # O . . . . . . . . | M # O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | # # O . . . . . . . . | # # O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

You can also utilise an iterative method for identifying worthless regions on the board, here displayed for such a Black region:

:b1: Mark the solidly connected Black stones that are RIGHT NEXT to :ex: (with :bs: here).
:b2: Mark the (previously unmarked) empty board points RIGHT NEXT to :bs: with :ex:.
:b3: Mark the solidly connected Black stones, as well as the previously unmarked empty points, that are RIGHT NEXT to :et: (= :ex: from :b2:).
:b4: If no stones / empty points were marked, then stop, else continue with :b2:.

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

This "useless point" situated at the boundary between "independently alive" stones of both players can be filled by either player.
Thus, this type of "useless point" will be called "two-sided boundary point" hereafter.

Please note that -- in principle -- IMPLICITLY enforcing the occupation of "two-sided boundary points" (as is done in J89) is nothing more than a means to make the scoring less prone to error. "Two-sided boundary points" have nothing to do with "territory"!

----------

"One-sided boundary points"

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +------------------------
$$ | M O . O . O . O X . . |
$$ | P X O O O O O O X . . |
$$ | X X X * X O X X X . . |
$$ | X . X X X O X . . . . |
$$ | . X O O O X X . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

The "useless point" :ex: is RIGHT NEXT to the marked White stone, which is a "death stone".

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point". As a matter of course, it's a White region only.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | M O . O . O . O X . . | M @ . O . O . O X . . | . @ M O . O . O X . . | . O T @ . @ . @ X . . | . O . @ M @ M @ X . . |
$$ | O X O O O O O O X . . | @ X O O O O O O X . . | @ X O O O O O O X . . | O X @ @ @ @ @ @ X . . | O X @ @ @ @ @ @ X . . |
$$ | X X X * X O X X X . . | X X X * X O X X X . . | X X X * X O X X X . . | X X X * X @ X X X . . | X X X * X @ X X X . . |
$$ | X . X X X O X . . . . | X . X X X O X . . . . | X . X X X O X . . . . | X . X X X @ X . . . . | X . X X X @ X . . . . |
$$ | . X O O O X X . . . . | . X O O O X X . . . . | . X O O O X X . . . . | . X O O O X X . . . . | . X O O O X X . . . . |
$$ | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . | . X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . | X X O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . | O O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

The iterative method again.

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

This "useless point" can be filled by only one player (White here). The two-stage ko makes another White move necessary, but this issue will not be discussed here.
Thus, this type of "useless point" will be called "one-sided boundary point" hereafter.

Please note that -- in principle -- IMPLICITLY enforcing the occupation of "one-sided boundary points" (as is done in J89) is nothing more than a means to make the scoring less prone to error. "One-sided boundary points" have nothing to do with "territory"!

----------

"Unplayable useless points"

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

This is a position being part of Diagram 6 of J89's Commentary.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------
$$ | M W W W M B O . . |
$$ | B B B B B B O . . |
$$ | O O O O O O O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

There are two "useless points" :ex:, which both are RIGHT NEXT to White's "life-stones" :wc: and to Black's "life-stones" :bc:.

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless points" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless points" from Black's point of view.

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

Neither side will play at any of the marked points.
Thus, this type of "useless point" will be called "unplayable useless point" hereafter.

Please note that the determination of "terriory" is ONLY affected by these "unplayable useless points".

----------

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

This position is displayed in Diagram 13 of J89's Commentary (original version).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------
$$ | . W M B . B O . . |
$$ | W W W B B B O . . |
$$ | B B B B O O O . . |
$$ | O O O O O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

The "useless point" :ex: is RIGHT NEXT to White's "life-stones" :wc:, as well as to Black's "life-stones" :bc:.

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from Black's point of view.

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

Neither side will play at the marked point, which therefore is an "unplayable useless point".

The determination of "territory" is affected by this "unplayable useless point".

----------

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

This diagram shows J89's Commentary's Diagram 14 / J89's L&D Example 25, with colours reversed.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +------------------
$$ | . W M P B O . . |
$$ | W W W B B O . . |
$$ | Z W B . B O . . |
$$ | M B B B B O . . |
$$ | B B O O O O . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . |[/go]

The "useless point" :ex: at the upper edge is RIGHT NEXT to White's "life-stones" :wc:, as well as to White's "dead" (according to J89) stone :wx:.
The "useless point" :ex: at the left edge is RIGHT NEXT to Black's "life-stones" :bc:, as well as to Black's "dead" (according to J89) stone :bx:.

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from Black's point of view.

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

Neither side will play at any of the marked "useless points", which therefore are "unplayable useless points".

The determination of "terriory" is affected by these "unplayable useless points".

----------

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

This is J89's L&D Example 2.

I have modified it slightly so as not to distract from the actual topic.

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

The "useless point" :ex: is RIGHT NEXT to White's "seki-stones" :ws:, as well as to Black's "life-stones" :bc:.

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from Black's point of view.

- - - - -

The iterative method should be clear now, so let us discuss the board's topology a bit further, instead.

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

As a matter of course, Black stones cannot surround Black stones, as "Black stone" is the material the fences are made of.
Black's marked stones simply disappear in Black's topological view on the board.

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

Neither can Black stones effectively surround "alive" White stones.
White's marked stones simply disappear in Black's topoligical view on the baord, as well as everything these stones surround.

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

This diagram shows Black's resulting topological view on the board.

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

This is the comparable topological White view.

You will easily realise that the empty point that exists in BOTH topological views is the "useless point".

- - - - -

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

Neither side will play at the marked point, which therefore is an "unplayable useless point".

The determination of "territory" is affected by this "unplayable useless point".

----------

To be continued ... (simply follow the link)

_________________
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)


Last edited by Cassandra on Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:21 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents
Post #27 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:39 am 
Oza

Posts: 3086
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4112
Quote:
J89 mentiones something like '"useless points" next to them "ALONG THE LINES OF THE BOARD"'. What does "along the lines of the board" mean?


There is no "along" (i.e. a nuance of extending) in the Japanese. It says その路上に隣接して = adjacent ON its pathways. 路 means pathway (= michi) not line, and the pathway can be as short or as long as you like. Pathway is not an ideal word, of course. Davies correctly rendered it (Article 4) via 'horizontally or vertically adjacent'. 路 is not an ideal word in Japanese either, and Yasunaga Hajime tried to solve the problem (i.e. the need to exclude diagonally adjacent points) in his Rules Constitution by using the term 活路: 一子の活路とは其の点より沿うての四つの隣点. Nobody followed his lead, no doubt because katsuro is used in go as a non-technical word to mean 'means of escape', but we can at least see that he meant one adjacent point in each of four directions, i.e. the shortest possible paths.

Incidentally, I don't like "useless points". They can be useful if they are liberties. I think you can solve most of your problems if you just accept that all Japanese go players strong enough to make sense of the rules clearly distinguish two separate meanings of dame (neutral points and liberties) in just the same way that we easily distinguish 'point' to mean either an intersection or a point of territory (or a poke in the EYE!). And there are not three types of "useless" points, because one of them is covered by prohibited moves (a different term in both Japanese and English).

But there are three types of procedures: translations, interpretations and re-writes. It looks to me as if we are moving into re-write TERRITORY!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents
Post #28 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:07 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
J89 mentiones something like '"useless points" next to them "ALONG THE LINES OF THE BOARD"'. What does "along the lines of the board" mean?

There is no "along" (i.e. a nuance of extending) in the Japanese. It says その路上に隣接して = adjacent ON its pathways. 路 means pathway (= michi) not line, and the pathway can be as short or as long as you like. Pathway is not an ideal word, of course. Davies correctly rendered it (Article 4) via 'horizontally or vertically adjacent'. 路 is not an ideal word in Japanese either, and Yasunaga Hajime tried to solve the problem (i.e. the need to exclude diagonally adjacent points) in his Rules Constitution by using the term 活路: 一子の活路とは其の点より沿うての四つの隣点. Nobody followed his lead, no doubt because katsuro is used in go as a non-technical word to mean 'means of escape', but we can at least see that he meant one adjacent point in each of four directions, i.e. the shortest possible paths.

Thank you very much for the English translation.

John Fairbairn wrote:
Incidentally, I don't like "useless points". They can be useful if they are liberties. I think you can solve most of your problems if you just accept that all Japanese go players strong enough to make sense of the rules clearly distinguish two separate meanings of dame (neutral points and liberties) in just the same way that we easily distinguish 'point' to mean either an intersection or a point of territory (or a poke in the EYE!). And there are not three types of "useless" points, because one of them is covered by prohibited moves (a different term in both Japanese and English).

Apparently, you are still fine with utilising ambiguous technical terms in rule texts.

Just imagine if there were a punishable ban on eating apples in public in Germany.
Usually, Japanese tourists (quite fond of pears) have to pay the € 100 fine that is due for violating this ban.
Police officer: "Oh, you didn't know that everyone in Germany knows that "林檎" also means "梨"? Nevertheless, ignorance does not protect from punishment."

John Fairbairn wrote:
It looks to me as if we are moving into re-write TERRITORY!

Oh, you can be very sure that a game's result will not be affected.

BTW, which of the various meanings of "地" do you have in mind?

_________________
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: GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents
Post #29 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:19 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
Incidentally, I don't like "useless points". ... And there are not three types of "useless" points, because one of them is covered by prohibited moves (a different term in both Japanese and English).

What are you complaining about so vehemently?

About the fact that I split a Japanese technical term, which you say has four different Go-typical meanings :w1: :w2: :w3: :w4: in Japan, into seven parts :b1: :b2: :b3: :b4: :b5: :b6: :b7:?

I could understand your complaints if it were the other way around. In other words, subcomponents of the original would have been lost when :w1: and :w2: were combined to form :b1: and :w3: and :w4: were combined to form :b2:. But that is really not the case, quite the opposite.

Everything is open source. There are no hidden subroutines.
Everyone, who likes to do so, can tailor everything according to their own needs.
And I think that my explanations are extensive and detailed enough to enable a realistic assessment of the effects and consequences of their own tailor-made suit, for the production of which :b3: and :b5: were combined to form :b8: and :b4: and :b7: to form :b9:.


I regret to say that. But you had your chance, but unfortunately you let it go to waste.

_________________
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: GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents
Post #30 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:43 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 255
Liked others: 17
Was liked: 30
Rank: panda 4 dan
IGS: kvasir
The discussion appears to have moved away from the translation of the text to its formal semantics, that is an interpretation of its logical consequences. These are two separate subjects (not without a connection). It doesn't make much sense to call it a disagreement if person J. said something about translations and person C. said something about semantics, it is apples and oranges. You can argue over apples, you could argue about oranges, but arguing apples and oranges is never fruitful.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents
Post #31 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:12 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 272
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
This post is doing great on diagrams but it needs more formulas and math equations.

Yoshikuni Ichiro and the others would be proud of this pursuit of rationality that does not in any way impair the richness of Japanese Go. The problems that may have arisen in the past have been eliminated and we can enjoy Go just as we ever did. The rationality of Japanese Go, which has a long history and tradition with courtesy and dignity, has been preserved. Well done.

we're doomed

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents
Post #32 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:00 am 
Oza

Posts: 3086
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4112
Quote:
Apparently, you are still fine with utilising ambiguous technical terms in rule texts.


Yes, I am. And so, it seems, are you.

There can be ambiguity when there is no context, but almost always there is context and in most such cases the ambiguity is purely theoretical and not a problem for humans, though computers may choke on it.

However, you are also walking the ambiguity minefield in that (a) you are using technical words like 'point' and (b) you are implicitly accepting the ambiguity in most Japanese nouns, which do not distinguish between singular and plural, or in the lack pf indefinite and definite articles.

Quote:
Just imagine if there were a punishable ban on eating apples in public in Germany.
Usually, Japanese tourists (quite fond of pears) have to pay the € 100 fine that is due for violating this ban.
Police officer: "Oh, you didn't know that everyone in Germany knows that "林檎" also means "梨"? Nevertheless, ignorance does not protect from punishment."


I don't have to imagine this sort of scene. I have lived it. On my first trip to Germany, by train, there was a border stop and customs officers came on board, checking everyone's bags. In my bag I had a sandwich. The German officer asked if it contained butter. I said yes and he confiscated my lunch. Apparently it was against the law to import butter into Germany without a licence (this was pre-EU of course). At first I thought he was re-living the war, but he turned out to be quite a nice chap. Still, when I suggested common sense should be used, he looked at me as if I'd come from Mars: "This is regulations!" (If I'd used margarine instead, would it still have been a Butterbrot?)

I was going to add some other things but kvasir has covered some of them. I'll therefore just say that I ventured into this discussion when CDavis was being criticised for saying, basically, on linguistic principles, that of course the Japanese understand their own rules. He was challenged precisely on those linguistic principles and at that point I, as a linguist, got interested. It seemed to continue as a linguistic exercise, and this appeared to be confirmed when we were offered a German translation.

However, it seems to have unravelled quickly since then and it seems that in reality Cassandra (a prophetess cursed to issue true prophecies never to be believed, as I recall?) was far more interested in logic and computer programming than in language - all the references to languages were used just to support the algorithms. At that point I suddenly lost interest. I am already in the habit here of skipping over anything (by any writer) that smacks of formulas, numbers, maths and even diagrams. I have zero interest in the logic of rules. Unless language is allowed to raise its Hydra-like heads again, there is little more for me to say. But I do continue to maintain that the Japanese do understand their own rules, even with their alleged ambiguities. Which is not quite the same as saying they understand all the applications of those rules, incidentally - otherwise we wouldn't get so many Japanese people asking pros how to handle this or that unfamiliar position. In that respect, what it now appears Cassandra is really doing - producing algorithms - may be useful, but I'm not the one to judge. I, for example, haven't got a clue what the latest Japanese rule on bent four is. Though I can tell you what the Japanese terms for it are.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Post #33 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:30 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 272
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
why bother with the disguise of logical rules at all? Just include 25 precedents and done.
Your statement jumped out at me while scanning down the thread.

Did you catch on to what the Japanese committee was doing or was this a joke?

It seems pretty clear to me that this is what the committee (chairmen Yoshikuni, Oeda 8dan, etc.) planned to do, and what they did. Life and death is merely defined. There's no need to play it out, which is why the later examples don't bother. Bent 4 is dead, seki collapse is a thing, so bent 4 and seki collapse is easy to assess.

This is how I read the statements about the revision 日本囲碁規約改定の経過について and the revision outline 日本囲碁規約改定の概要(ご参考). They defined life and death and merely provided a (possible) rationale for why it is the way it is. They even took back torazu sanmoku.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents
Post #34 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:55 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
John Fairbairn wrote:
But I do continue to maintain that the Japanese do understand their own rules, even with their alleged ambiguities.

It is no wonder that Japanese understand Japanese rules, written in Japanese, which were clearly designed for the application by Japanese Go players.

Apparently, Nihon Kiin's main concern was to get rid of the weaknesses, shortcomings, contradictions and errors of J49.
"Internationalisation of Go" and similar, although mentioned in the preface, was just a sideshow, a nice-to-have. Otherwise, they would have published an AUTHORISED translation into English in parallel.

I doubt that the Nihon Kiin had any truly altruistic interest in developing the game of Go in the West. Rather, the focus was probably on getting ahead of other East Asian countries / competitors on that field.

----------

Once upon a time, the Japanese were firmly convinced that no one other than native Japanese could achieve masterful perfection in Ikebana (same for any other of the Japanese arts).
A few decades ago, this view changed somewhat to the effect that non-Japanese had to study Ikebana in Japan for a long time to achieve this mastery.
On the occasion of the Japan Days 2008 in Leksand (the European Go Congress was held at the same time) my wife, together with two other Ikebana ladies, had organised a large Ikebana exhibition and filled it with arrangements.
In our hotel, she was constantly addressed in Japanese by Japanese women who wanted to express their appreciation. My wife had to apologise and the conversation had to be continued in English; she did not know any Japanese and had not been to Japan at that time. Years later, on the occasion of our trip to Japan, it turned out that she was at war with Japanese anyway, this language was somehow not really hers.

----------

It may be Japanese culture that all faults in J89 shall be cured by applying "Japanese culture". However, it would have been more in line with the Japanese striving for perfection not to make any mistakes in the first place. As I already mentioned before, the work on the formulation of the rules lacked a professional approach.

_________________
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: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Post #35 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:02 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 400
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 35
CDavis7M wrote:
jann wrote:
why bother with the disguise of logical rules at all? Just include 25 precedents and done.
Your statement jumped out at me while scanning down the thread.

Did you catch on to what the Japanese committee was doing or was this a joke?

It seems pretty clear to me that this is what the committee (chairmen Yoshikuni, Oeda 8dan, etc.) planned to do, and what they did. Life and death is merely defined. There's no need to play it out, which is why the later examples don't bother. Bent 4 is dead, seki collapse is a thing, so bent 4 and seki collapse is easy to assess.

This is how I read the statements about the revision 日本囲碁規約改定の経過について and the revision outline 日本囲碁規約改定の概要(ご参考). They defined life and death and merely provided a (possible) rationale for why it is the way it is. They even took back torazu sanmoku.

This is about the opposite of the truth. In reality J89 took a huge step forward and found and established a logical theory behind Japanese L/D with the new ko rule. It also performs well in examples. Torazu3 actually changed, consistently with the new theory. My comment was a response to the mentality of ignoring basic counterexamples for random new inventions that simply don't work.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Post #36 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:26 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 272
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
jann wrote:
why bother with the disguise of logical rules at all? Just include 25 precedents and done.
...It seems pretty clear to me that this is what the committee planned to do, and what they did.
This is about the opposite of the truth. In reality J89 took a huge step forward and found and established a logical theory behind Japanese L/D with the new ko rule. It also performs well in examples. Torazu3 actually changed, consistently with the new theory.
I think we are starting off saying the same thing. You say "logical theory behind" life and death status and I said "rationale." But then I take it a step further.

I think that the "theory/rationale" really is just that. The life and death rulings/definitions already existed and there is just a new theory/rationale to provide the most consistency. This is the stated goal of the committee. They were not trying to create a procedure to define life and death status. They were trying to rationalize the existing life and death rulings/definition with consistency. Inconsistent rulings were thrown out and made consistent.

Moreover, the correct resolution of the compound examples near the end of the list can really only be reached by layering several of the ruling/definitions from the earlier examples. In the compound positions, if you just try to "play it out" using Article 7-2 you can get weird results where teire would be required (when it isn't needed), or you end up in a loop, or you somehow get the wrong life and death status. Like in Examples 16, 17, and 18, etc. For example, after the first move in confirming life and death status, a double-ko loop can start up where one player cannot afford to NOT pass for the ko to play elsewhere. Though I think this doesn't happen if you follow the "playstyle" of the examples (which is never explained).

So, these are just life and death definitions (based on a rationale theory) and you can apply them and layer them as needed:
• Bent-4 in the corner makes stones dead, even with other kos.
• An eye beats no eyes in a triple ko, even with other kos.
• A ko for temporary life is dead, even with other kos.
• Mannen ko is seki.
• Sometimes Teire is needed.
• Sometimes Teire is not needed.

So, why bother with the disguise of logical rules procedures at all? Just include 25 precedents and done.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢


Last edited by CDavis7M on Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Post #37 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:46 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 400
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 35
CDavis7M wrote:
in confirming life and death status, a double-ko loop can start up where one player cannot afford to not pass for the ko to play elsewhere.

https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 02#p267502

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Post #38 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:59 pm 
Lives with ko

Posts: 272
Liked others: 30
Was liked: 36
Rank: OGS 6K
GD Posts: 56
KGS: CDavis7M
OGS: CDavis7M
jann wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
in confirming life and death status, a double-ko loop can start up where one player cannot afford to not pass for the ko to play elsewhere.

https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 02#p267502

I answered you over there, but that suggestion is ignoring basic counterexamples for random new inventions.

_________________
㋷ ㋣ ㋢

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents
Post #39 Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:07 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
RobertJasiek wrote:
How / with which principles have you derived / created the German version?
Continued.


Approach #4: Topology of "valuable regions".


Already subdivided regions

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | C W C W X . . |
$$ | W W W W X . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |[/go]

The aim of the game of Go is to create value through securely fencing in board points.
In the diagram above, the points :ec: are securely fenced in by White's :wc: stones.

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

The points :et: create value for White.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bm95
$$ +---------------+
$$ | 1 O a O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black is unable to prevent White from creating value.
A Black move :b95:, intending to capture White's stones with another move at A, is forbidden by the rules.
A division of White's formation into two parts is sufficient.

Why "95"?
Black's forbidden move is a "no-go".
"Nine" in English sounds like "nein" in German, which is "no" in English.
"五" = "go" is "five" in Japanese.


----------

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

Further subdivision of White's formation does not fundamentally strengthen the stability of the fence (there are exceptions, of course, but which we will not discuss here).

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

The points :et: create value for White.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | . O . O 1 O X | . O . O O O X |
$$ | O O O O O O X | O O O O O O X |
$$ | X X X X X X X | X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Please note that White could -- in principle -- transform this formation into the basic one.
As a matter of course, White would do without it in practice so as not to destroy her own values.

----------

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

A larger size of a fenced part of the board does not fundamentally affect the stability of the fence.

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

The points :et: create value for White.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +----------------
$$ | . O 1 . O X . |
$$ | O O O O O X . |
$$ | X X X X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 2 |[/go]
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bm95
$$ +----------------
$$ | . O X 1 O X . |
$$ | O O O O O X . |
$$ | X X X X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O |[/go]

Again, Black is hindered to prevent White from creating value.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | . O . 1 O X . | . O . O O X . |
$$ | O O O O O X . | O O O O O X . |
$$ | X X X X X X . | X X X X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

And again, White would be able to create the basic formation.

----------

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

A Black stone :bx: inside the fenced region enhances the value of this region for White.

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

The points :et: and :bt: create value for White.
The value of :bt: is worth two times the value of :et:.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bm95
$$ +----------------
$$ | . O X 1 O X . |
$$ | O O O O O X . |
$$ | X X X X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Again, Black is hindered to prevent White from creating value.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | . O X 1 O X . | . O . O O X . |
$$ | O O O O O X . | O O O O O X . |
$$ | X X X X X X . | X X X X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

And again, White would be able to create the basic formation.

----------

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

Here, Black's fenced-in stones :bx: also fence something in the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +----------------------------------------
$$ | 3 X 1 . . O . O X | O . O . . O . O X |
$$ | X X O O O O O O X | . . O O O O O O X |
$$ | O O O X X X X X X | O O O X X X X X X |
$$ | X X X X . . . . . | X X X X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 2 | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

However, White is able to prove that Black's fence is not solid enough.

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

The points :et: and :bt: create value for White.
The value of :bt: is worth two times the value of :et:.

----------

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

Obviously White was busy mending her fences elsewhere on the board.
Again, Black's stones :bs: in the corner also fence something.

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

White fenced one point :es: at the upper edge.

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

Black fenced one point :es: in the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------------------------
$$ | 2 X X X 1 O . O X | O . . . O O . O X |
$$ | X X O O O O O O X | . . O O O O O O X |
$$ | O O O X X X X X X | O O O X X X X X X |
$$ | X X X X . . . . . | X X X X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black cannot prevent White from creating value.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +----------------------------------------
$$ | . X X X 1 O 2 O X | . X X X . . X . X |
$$ | X X O O O O O O X | X X . . . . . . X |
$$ | O O O X X X X X X | . . . X X X X X X |
$$ | X X X X . . . . . | X X X X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

White cannot prevent Black from creating value.

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

However, both fences share one point :ex: poisoned no man's land that makes the fenced areas nearby unsellable.

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

The upper area of the board has no value for anyone.


Undivided regions

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

Be aware! Newbies at work!
White's :wx: stones fence something in the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | 1 O X . . . . | X . X . . . . |
$$ | O O X . . . . | . . X . . . . |
$$ | X X X . . . . | X X X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

However, Black is able to prove that White's fence is not solid enough.

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

There is nothing of value for White in the upper left corner.

----------

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

White's :wx: stones fence something in the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +------------------------------------------------
$$ | 1 2 O X . . . | 3 O O X . . . | X . . X . . . |
$$ | O O O X . . . | O O O X . . . | . . . X . . . |
$$ | X X X X . . . | X X X X . . . | X X X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

However, Black is able to prove that White's fence is not solid enough.
Please note that the sequence could have been stopped after :w2:, as this move reached a position, of which we already know that it does not contain any value for White.

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

There is nothing of value for White in the upper left corner.

----------

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

White's :ws: stones fence something in the corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +----------------
$$ | . 1 . O X . . |
$$ | O O O O X . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |[/go]

The foreman came by just in time to put the finishing touches on the White construction.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +----------------
$$ | T O T O X , , |
$$ | O O O O X , , |
$$ | X X X X X , , |
$$ | , , , , , , , |
$$ | , , , , , , , |[/go]

Thereafter, the points :wt: create value for White.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +------------------------------------------------
$$ | 4 1 3 O X . . | O . . O X . . | P , , P X , , |
$$ | O O O O X . . | O O O O X . . | P P P P X , , |
$$ | X X X X X . . | X X X X X . . | X X X X X , , |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | , , , , , , , |
$$ | . . . . . . 2 | . . . . . . O | , , , , , , , |[/go]

Another area on the board was not so lucky.
Black professionals came by and started dismantling the White fence.
White's newbies quickly stopped their efforts to repair their fence, realising that an already known state of their remaing fence was reached.

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

After this incident, there is nothing of value for White in the upper left corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +----------------
$$ | S M S @ X . . |
$$ | @ @ @ @ X . . |
$$ | X X X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |[/go]

To what extent the upper left corner contains value for whom has not yet been decided.

----------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +----------------
$$ | C C C C W X . |
$$ | W W W W W X . |
$$ | X X X X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |[/go]

From here one, we will see skilled workers at work again.
In the diagram above, the points :ec: are securely fenced in by White's :wc: stones.

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

The points :et: create value for White.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | . 1 2 . O X . | . X O . O X . |
$$ | O O O O O X . | O O O O O X . |
$$ | X X X X X X . | X X X X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black cannot prevent White from creating value.
With :w2:, White returns to the previous section.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | . 1 . . O X . | . O . . O X . |
$$ | O O O O O X . | O O O O O X . |
$$ | X X X X X X . | X X X X X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

White could also do so on her own initiative, but will refrain from doing so to not unnecessarily destroy any value.

----------

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

A Black stone :bx: inside the fenced region enhances the value of this region for White.

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

The points :et: and :bt: create value for White.
The value of :bt: is worth two times the value of :et:.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | . X 1 2 . O X | . X X O . O X |
$$ | O O O O O O X | O O O O O O X |
$$ | X X X X X X X | X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black is hindered to prevent White from creating value.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +----------------
$$ | . X . 1 . O X |
$$ | O O O O O O X |
$$ | X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 2 |[/go]

White would be able to return to the previous section.


Double fenced regions

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

Something unexpected happened inside the White fence during the lunch break.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | 2 X X X 1 O X | X X X X . . X |
$$ | O O O O O O X | . . . . . . X |
$$ | X X X X X X X | X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

White is unable to dismantle the beginnings of a Black fence inside her own one.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | 2 X X X 1 O X | O . . . . O X |
$$ | O O O O O O X | O O O O O O X |
$$ | X X X X X X X | X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black also has no success in trying to remove the interfering White fence.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +----------------
$$ | M # # # M @ X |
$$ | @ @ @ @ @ @ X |
$$ | X X X X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |[/go]

The bosses of both companies agree to treat the two points :ex:, which have obviously been fenced off by both sides, as no man's land. Cloak-and-dagger operations to dismantle the fence of the other company in moonlight will therefore not take place.

----------

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

Somewhere in the foothills of the desert.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | . O X 2 O X . | . O X X . X . |
$$ | O O X 1 O X X | O O X . . X X |
$$ | O O X X O X . | O O X X . X . |
$$ | O O O O X X X | O O O O X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

White is unable to dismantle the section of Black's fence inside her own one.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +--------------------------------
$$ | . O X 2 O X . | . O . O O X . |
$$ | O O X 1 O X X | O O . . O X X |
$$ | O O X X O X . | O O . . O X . |
$$ | O O O O X X X | O O O O X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black also has no success in trying to remove the interfering section of White's fence.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +----------------
$$ | . O # M @ X . |
$$ | O O # M @ X X |
$$ | . O # # @ X . |
$$ | O O O O X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |[/go]

The bosses of both companies agree to treat the two points :ex:, which have obviously been fenced off by both sides, as no man's land.
:ws: and :bs: will remain in the area as memorials.

----------

To be continued ... (simply scroll down)

_________________
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)


Last edited by Cassandra on Sat Oct 23, 2021 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents
Post #40 Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:24 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1216
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 140
Rank: German 1 Kyu
RobertJasiek wrote:
How / with which principles have you derived / created the German version?
Continued.


Approach #5: Territory! Territoryyyyy!!! Where is Territory? Has anyone seen Territory? Does anyone know where my dog iiiiis???

In the previous posting, it was stated that VALUE can only be created within called-group-by-the-common-people formations that either already contain at least two permanently-for-the-opponent-forbidden-board-point construction elements, none of which is the sole connection between the called-group-by-the-common-people formation's stones along the lines of the board, which are compatible to called-true-eye-by-the-common-people construction elements, or that can be transferred into such a called-group-by-the-common-people formation with at least two permanently-for-the-opponent-forbidden-board-point construction elements, none of which is the sole connection between the called-group-by-the-common-people formation's stones along the lines of the board, which are compatible to called-true-eye-by-the-common-people construction elements, even if the opponent plays first, and which enclosed board intersections are either unoccupied or occupied only by opposing can-be-made-to-disappear-permanently-even-if-the-opponent-plays-first called-group-by-the-common-people construction elements, which are compatible to called-dead-by-the-common-people called-group-by-the-common-people construction elements, which are compatible to called-two-eye-formations-by-some-rule-specialists construction elements, as well as to called-independently-alive-by-the-common-people called-group-by-the-common-people construction elements.

However, we must not forget the stubborn company managers who are unable to apply universal principles across the board, but only realise AFTER carrying out a lost labour of love action that the previous use of their workers was merely a waste of labour and working time.

Two application examples may illustrate this.

----------

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

Called-snap-back-by-the-common-people formation.

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

The points :et: and :bt: at the left create value for White.
The value of :bt: is worth two times the value of :et:.
In total, the value for White is seven times the value of :et:.

The points :et: at the upper edge create value for Black.
In total, the value for Black is two times the value of :et:.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | 1 O X X . X . | X 2 X X . X . | . W X X . X . | T O X X T X T |
$$ | X X O X X X X | X X O X X X X | . . W X X X X | T T O X X X X |
$$ | O O O O . . . | O O O O . . . | W W W W . . . | O O O O . . . |
$$ | . O . O . . . | . O . O . . . | . W . W . . . | T O T O . . . |
$$ | O O O . . . . | O O O . . . . | W W W . . . . | O O O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | Z Z . . w p l |[/go]

Black's company manager insist on dismantling White's fence at the top permanently, but fails.

In the end, every single part of White's fence is where it originally was.

White's value on the board is five times the value of :et:.
The value in White's prisoner lid is two times the value of :et:.
In total, White's value is seven times the value of :et:, the same as before Black's desperate deed.

----------

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

Called-nakade-by-the-common-people formation.

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

The points :et: and :bt: create value for White.
The value of :bt: is worth two times the value of :et:.
In total, the value for White is 15 times the value of :et:.

Please understand the lower part of the diagram being value for Black.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------------------------------------------------
$$ | O O O 1 X O . | 5 2 4 X X O . | X 7 6 X X O . | X X 8 X X O . |
$$ | X X X X X O O | X X X X X O O | X X X X X O O | X X X X X O O |
$$ | O O O O O O . | O O O O O O . | O O O O O O . | O O O O O O . |
$$ | X X X X X O O | X X X X X O O | X X X X X O O | X X X X X O O |
$$ | . . . . X X X | . . . 3 X X X | . . . X X X X | . . . X X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . |[/go]
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bm9
$$ +------------------------------------------------
$$ | 4 2 O . . O . | W W W . . W . | O O O T T O T |
$$ | . . . . . O O | . . . . . W W | T T T T T O O |
$$ | O O O O O O . | W W W W W W . | O O O O O O T |
$$ | X X X X X O O | X X X X X W W | X X X X X O O |
$$ | . 3 1 X X X X | . X X X X X X | . Z Z Z X X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | w p l ? b p l |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | Z Z Z ? P P P |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | Z Z Z ? P P P |
$$ | . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . | Z Z Z ? . . . |[/go]

Black's company manager insist on dismantling White's fence at the top permanently, but fails.

In the end, every single part of White's fence is where it originally was.

White's value on the board is nine times the value of :et:.
The value in White's prisoner lid is nine times the value of :et:.
In total, White's value is 18 times the value of :et:.

Black's value on the board has decreased by three times the value of :et:.
The value in Black's prisoner lid is six times the value of :et:.
In total, Black's value is three times the value of :et:.

White has a surplus value of 15 times the value of :et:, which equals her value before Black's desperate deed.

----------

It should have become evident that :bt: is a compound of one :et: IN the board and one :bx: in a layer ABOVE the board.

A player's "territory" is a direct property of the board's intersections, and as such equivalent to the set of all :et: of that player.

----------

To be continued ... (simply follow the link)

_________________
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)


Last edited by Cassandra on Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  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