asura wrote:
Cassandra, a gereral question to the model, are the comments inside the text from Thomas Redecker or your's?
The comments are from both of us
Quote:
My first impression is that the rules look relative close to the verbal japanes rules (or a variation of that). The example_4 demonstrates the / a difficulty to reach always the J1989 result with that rules. But if this result is not (always) required I think this result could be tolerated, because it's a quite strange position. (Although it seems a bit unfair to give everything to black there.)
As stated in my paper, the original does not include a special Ko-ban rule for "status confirmation".
This leads to several results that (at first sight -- with the "common" background) look very odd. But they are -- as the results for examples 16 to 18 -- coherent within the given environment. In my opinion, this also gives a valid stimulation for thinking about the pros and cons of a status confirmation that claims stones to be dead that cannot be captured during actual play.
The result for example 4 is a matter of taste, in my opinion.
For me, it has some charme to declare all white stones to be dead, despite the fact that not all of them could be really captured with actual play.
However, I think that this example also highlights the philosophy used for "permanent stones after capture". In principle, it restricts the valid area to stones that the opponent has to really capture in the process of taking another group off the board. Placing any stone "elsewhere" on the board does not affect "status confirmation".
Quote:
For me the definitions at the beginning could be a bit clearer (for F3 in relation to S1/2).
My fault with "translating" / shortening the text.
Quote:
In example_10 one variation is not mentioned: What if white captures the single b stone and connects there?
To be honest, I did not intend to create diagrams for every variation.
But you are right, this is another "capturable-2"-case.
In the book, only both "property / status" diagrams are given, no sequence. So perhaps the author had this implication already in mind
Quote:
Overall the rules are quite intuitive but in example_24 the scoring feels a bit strange. I have added unlimited ko-threats (for the playing phase) and now white gets an undeserved (imo) point for not connecting the ko. Whether 'A' is a dame or occupied by a stone doesn't matter for it.
"status confirmation" may always be overridden by earlier sequences within "play".
Due to the non-existent special Ko-ban rule for "status confirmation", there are also other positions with the original, where you can find a point of territory at a spot you would usually call "false eye", but with the single stone boardering it never touched during the sequence.
_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever:
https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htmIgo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)