Ideas for Japanese-style rules

[Cassandra]

Once more: Try to apply your rules (the rules!) to the 360 stones example!

I have done it already.

Let's have a second try.

It goes without saying the the 360 stone chain cannot get the status "2-eyed". There is only one point left that could be awarded.

There is no other chain on the board to evaluate.

Independently of our result of the evaluation of the 360 stones chain (which can only be "stable" or "removable"), there is no territory on the board (which can only be found within "2-eyed" chains).

Should the result of our evaluation be "removable" (what I do not think), there is nothing to be taken off the board, because the "removable" chain is not situation inside a "2-eyed" one.

During "Evaluate" you cannot repair what you might have missed during "Play".

If you forgot during "Play", for example, to capture a 50 stones string (that otherwise could have been connected to a living group), you will not get these 50 stones as prisoners during or after "Evaluate".

[HermanHiddema]

Herman, bent-4 does not need a pass for ko rule. An ordinary basic ko rule during the analysis suffices!

Locally, yes, but with unremovable ko threats a player can claim that it cannot be killed without compensation elsewhere. If you want bent-4 to be dead always, regardless of the global position, and without compensation elsewhere, then your rules most make provisions for it. It is a choice you can make when writing rules. Some rules makers prefer not to have bent-4 always dead, which is also a valid choice.

[RobertJasiek]

Cassandra, 2-eyed according to your examples does not need to be classified into subtypes and reference to no suicide or taboo intersections is also superfluous. It can be defined as followed:

A defender's string is "2-eyed" if he can force pass-alive stones on each of its intersections.

Note though that 2-eyed is a terribly inappropriate word and must be changed as soon as possible.

Using J2003 terms, your stable (I) could be generalized as follows, if that is your intention:

A defender's string is "stable-1" if it is not 2-eyed but uncapturable.

Using J2003 terms, your stable (II) could be generalized as follows, if that is your intention:

A defender's string is "stable-2" if it is not 2-eyed but capturable-1.

Assuming that these fit your intention, we can summarize:

A defender's string is "stable" if it is not 2-eyed but either uncapturable or capturable-1.

I am also not happy with the word stable though; it is used for too many other Go meanings.

A string is "removable" if it is neither 2-eyed nor stable.

I would like to see a proof whether the word is always justified... Until then another word is less risky.

One thing is very clear to me: Your rules text suggested something very different to me than what your recent examples suggest!

In your double ko seki sequence, why does it not end at move 4?! We already have two successive passes then! You should study sequences with single passes before the final passes though.

How do your rules apply to http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html Example 0000?

[RobertJasiek]

Concerning the 360 stones example and in view of your new implied definitions by the examples, your new failing attempt to apply your rules to the example does not need yet another attempt for the time being since the new implied definitions make the example much less interesting.

[RobertJasiek]

Herman, unremovable ko threats elsewhere do not change anything for J1989/J2003. To let them be effective, the unremovable ko threats must be "adjacent" to the bent-4 strings. The effect is only about points though - not about status clarification for the bent-4 strings. Before the game stop, it can make a difference. During analysis, unremovable ko threats of whichever kind do not affect the life and death status assessment of the bent-4 strings. So, no, a pass for ko rule(set) does not make bent-4 special. (If there is an adjacent n-tuple-ko, then it is not bent-4 any longer, except by fake-local shape. But J1989 do not use such fake-local-shape rules any longer. WAGC do, but they do not have pass-for-ko rules. So where is the sake-of-argument necessity for a pass-for-ko rule in case of bent-4?)

[Harleqin]

Concerning "acceptable": I find it unacceptable that the status of a group can change upon transition from "play" to "evaluation". If that could be the case, the "evaluation" would be a different game than the "play". Since the "play" is Go, "evaluation" would not be.

Yes, it is a choice, but it is a wrong choice. I am sorry for the explicit wording.

[RobertJasiek]

Additional considerations on Cassandra's life: We have:

A defender's string is "2-eyed" if he can force pass-alive stones on each of its intersections.

A defender's string is "stable" if it is not 2-eyed but either uncapturable or capturable-1.

***

Proposition: Each 2-eyed string is uncapturable.

Proof: By definition, each 2-eyed string can be transformed into a pass-alive string. A pass-alive string implies being uncapturable. QED.

Corollary: That a string is either 2-eyed or stable implies that the string is either uncapturable or capturable-1.

Remark: Cassandra's life is almost the same as J2003-alive, except that Cassandra has yet to rediscover capturable-2 ;)

[Cassandra]

One thing is very clear to me: Your rules text suggested something very different to me than what your recent examples suggest!

That's not really a surprise, isn't it ?

In your double ko seki sequence, why does it not end at move 4?! We already have two successive passes then! You should study sequences with single passes before the final passes though.

It had just been a matter of taste.

How do your rules apply to http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html Example 0000?

Intersting work of art.

$$
$$ |-------------------
$$ |Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q . |
$$ |Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y . Y . Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y P Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y . P Z P . Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y . Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y . Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q |
$$ |. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q |
$$ |-------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ |-------------------
$$ |Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q . |
$$ |Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y . Y . Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y P Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y . P Z P . Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y . Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y . Y Y Y Q |
$$ |Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q |
$$ |. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q |
$$ |-------------------[/go]

Triangled is "2-eyed", crossed is "removable".
Black has 1 point of territory, White 2 points.

Black should not have captured the two White stones.
Or played further on.
Either way, he will win by prisoners.

[Cassandra]

... except that Cassandra has yet to rediscover capturable-2

If you could hand me an example ?

It's too difficult to get through your text.

[RobertJasiek]

LOL.

Look at Example 0000 again: Tengen is capturable-2 under the Japanese 2003 Rules, i.e. alive.

And now look at Example 0000 again until you realize that your rules are a failure in their claim of being Japanese style! All really Japanese style rules must assess the (on-board-) score B+10. Else they are not Japanese style rules.

Look at Example 0000 yet again and realize why: Black is independently alive!

[Cassandra]

LOL.

Look at Example 0000 again: Tengen is capturable-2 under the Japanese 2003 Rules, i.e. alive.

And now look at Example 0000 again until you realize that your rules are a failure in their claim of being Japanese style! All really Japanese style rules must assess the (on-board-) score B+10. Else they are not Japanese style rules.

Look at Example 0000 yet again and realize why: Black is independently alive!

I suppose, Japanese 2003 Rules are yours. Perhaps you have to think about them ?

When evaluating the status of Black's stone at Tengen, it will disappear and never been born again.

A single stone that (or its successor) cannot be connected to a "2-eyed" group, has no chance to "live".

"Live" means to be connected to 2 points that must not be occopied by the opponent. If the single stone turns into one of these points, you have created a special type of board point: 50 % occopied, 50 % unoccupied.

In my opinion you have copied the inconsistent definition of "life" in the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules "... or if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture".

As said in a previous posting, you must not use the same rule for single stones and chains, if the chain cannot be handled in toto as a single stone. This being the source of some inconsistencies in the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules (x point without capturing, for example). The "new stone" (or "stones" when a chain is concerned) cannot be played anywhere !

If you want my rules to behave in your example 0000 as you wishes, a simple change in the wording would be sufficient. The primary points of the captured chain would have to become part of a "2-eyed" group. Will make no difference with "normal" situations.

May be that is it a more philosophical question: Can something be "alive" that vanishes into thin air ? Should be answered by native Japanese.

[oren]

That is amusing. I always though J2003 was Jasiek 2003 rules. I didn't realize he called it Japanese 2003 rules. That is adding confusion to the list that doesn't need to be there. If people start talking about Japanese 2003 rules, some people may think such a thing exists but the latest as pointed out before is 1989.

[RobertJasiek]

First do some homework: Read and understand all my webpages on Japanese rules! Then correct your signature and replace it by a reference to finding written rules that explain professional Japanese rules, a problem existing from 1603 (or earlier) to 2004:)

Read http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003com.html for how long I have thought to create J2003.

Saying that tengen will never be born again is misleading: It depends on the opponent's hypothetical strategic choices.

ALA one does not claim to produce something Japanese style, there is nothing wrong with a concept of life that also finally requires a stone on an intersection of every initial stone that shall live. (But if you use that - not for Japanese but for other territory scoring rules - then you should be more consistent: Stable of the kind capturable-1 is inconsistent then.) One can also design dozens of other territory scoring life definitions that are not Japanese style. I guess I have done so privately, but most of such rulesets are not particularly exciting - they lack convincing quality (like not Japanese enough or not simplified enough). Your suggestion "'Live' means to be connected to 2 points that must not be occopied by the opponent." with the implicit context that such is supposed to be a requirement ALSO for the initial stones is esoteric though. (If you think carefully about it, you will discover more surprises that you had not intended: Initially opposing stones on one or two of what will become the two empty intersections of a two-eye-formation.) Let us suppose though that somehow you will manage to skip all those nasty side-effects. Then your idea of combining "connected to two empty intersections" and "initial stones will be occupied by the player's stones finally" is another (and probably new) life concept for some territory scoring rules.

For rules to be Japanese style, they must meet more though than, e.g., your wild guess that your concept would agree to Japanese style, your wild, unreasoned attack on J2003 and your ignorance of, e.g., my model on WAGC Rules life.

To know what is Japanese style of Go game's life, we have sources: In particular J949, J989, WAGC Rules, verbal Japanese rules. Directly or indirectly, they all share in particular the following about independent life:

- At least two eyes are required.
- "eye" was undefined (before Robert Pauli's and my definitions) but everybody the functional purpose: the ability to rely on two separated "taboo" intersections due to the no suicide rule.
- A single string or a group of strings can form life together.
- There are uncapturable or capturable living strings.
- It does not matter whether the final places of the eyes and stones equal the initial places if only at least one new stone would be under one of the old stones of the same colour.

A requirement for capturable-2 was overlooked by all rules experts in Japan. The concept explains professional Japanese examples and the relation between WAGC-life and J1989-like life perfectly though.

Not only have I NOT copied the inconsistent J1989 life definition, but rather I have CORRECTED and COMPLETED it! Of the some 35 versions of J2003, you can find some via google in rec.games.go archives, I'd guess. In particular, I proved why "J1989-enable" does not work for explaining the Japanese professionals' own modern rules tradition.

You are wrong to see inconsistency in J1989 because of their different treatment of initially having a string and then being happy with already at least one new stone under the stones. Read and understand my rules and commentaries! E.g., capturable-2 explains shapes like 3-points-without-capturing in their J1989 appendices treatment (note: the name is meaningless though).

Indeed, the new stone cannot be played anywhere. Read and understand J2003! Did I say it already? Read and understand J2003! Read and understand J2003! In particular understand "local-2"! This is the term with which I prevent the new stone from being played anywhere.

With the J2003 or WAGC-model life concepts, stones do not vanish in the air but the (possibly new) living stones and the "eyes" form a unity: the 2-eye-formation. Read and understand
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcmod.html
http://senseis.xmp.net/?TwoEyeFormation

[RobertJasiek]

As much as Berliners are not inhabitants of Berlin but jam cakes.
Hamburgers are not inhabitants of Hamburg but fast food.
Wiener are not inhabitants of Vienna but sausage.
For further discussion of dual usage of geographical names, see rec.games.go archives. This topic must have been discussed a dozen of times now.

And have you ever seen any text with such a detailed copyright notice under it...? "[...] The author Robert Jasiek [...]" Sometimes understanding just requires reading...

[HermanHiddema]

Concerning "acceptable": I find it unacceptable that the status of a group can change upon transition from "play" to "evaluation". If that could be the case, the "evaluation" would be a different game than the "play". Since the "play" is Go, "evaluation" would not be.

Is it even theoretically possible to have Japanese style rules without an evaluation phase with special extra rules?

Yes, it is a choice, but it is a wrong choice. I am sorry for the explicit wording.

Instead of saying "not acceptable" and "wrong choice", isn't is just better to write opinions like "I don't like", "I wouldn't want"? Or add "In my opinion" to your writing. These things are, after all, just a matter of taste and opinion.