Consider, e.g., how the independently alive black string partitions the board:
Only from this, prisoner stones of white colour are removed. Only here Black will have territory.
Note that the examples also work very similarly for the Simplified Japanese Rules, except that they allow territory in sekis.
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html
User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
-
Cassandra
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1326
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:33 am
- Rank: German 1 Kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
Edited:
06-01: #5, #6
-------------------------------------------------
Hi, Robert,
One suggestion for your rules' text, one (may be temporarily) general conclusion of mine, one question on "precedence", all further explained below.
Explanation will follow the course of 1989 Nihon Kiin rules' examples of Life & Death. Please assume unmarked bordering stones as being "independently alive".
I will hide examples, which evaluation will give the same result as 1989 Nihon Kiin rules.
I will hide evaluation with "my ideas", when giving the same result as "user-friendly".
I hope I applied "user-friendly" correct.
Example #1 (Three points without capturing)
Score is three points of territory for Black.
= independently alive (here: single stone has successor that can be connected to "independently alive"
= independently alive (here: single stone has NO successor that can be connected to "independently alive"
= not independently alive
Score is zero points.
= not independently alive
Score is zero points.
= "stable"
= "removable"
"Traditional" score had been "three points for White".
Example #2 (Seki)
Example #3 (Hanezeki)
Example #4
White's chains will become prisoners.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see the position as Seki, due to the unclear scope of "placing another stone that cannot be captured", which cannot be board-wide.
Example #5 (x-points without capturing & Seki)
(edited: Black's chains are "independently alive)
All of White's chains will become prisoners.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see the position as Seki, due to the unclear scope of "placing another stone that cannot be captured", which cannot be board-wide.
White's right-hand chain will become prisoners.
White's right-hand chain will become prisoners.
Example #6 (Position before long life)
(edited: White's single stone is "independently alive")
Score is 3 points for White.
Nihon Kiin rules see all of Black's chains dead.
Example #7 (Bent-Four)
Example #8 (Triple Ko with an eye on one side)
Black's chains will become prisoners.
= independently alive
Score is zero.
Usually "cycle" during Analysis is equivalent to "not independently alive".
Why not in this situation here, too ?
Why torpedoing the consistent structure of "user-friendly" with this sole and only exception ?
Example #9 (Direct Ko)
Example #10 (Approach-move Ko)
Example #11 (Moonshine Ko)
Example #12 (Mannen Ko)
Example #13 (Seki)
Example #14 (Teire for Seki)
Score is zero.
It is NOT necessary for White to play at "a", as with Nihon Kiin rules.
Example #15 (Bent-Four & Ko as Teire)
Example #16 (Double-Ko Seki & Ko & Teire)
Score is zero.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see all of White's chains being dead, due to the undefined "collapse of the Seki".
Example #17 (Bent-Four & Ko & Double-Ko Seki)
Score is zero.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see Black's upper left 3-stone chain alive and all of White's chains being dead, due to the undefined "collapse of the Seki.
Example #18 (Bent-Four & Double-Ko Seki)
Black's chain in the top left corner will become prisoners.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see all of Black's chain dead, due to the undefined "collapse of the Seki".
Example #19 (Bent-Four & Ko & 3-point Nakade)
Example #20 (Bent-Four & Ko & 4-point Nakade)
Example #21 (Bent-Four & Ko & 5-point Nakade)
Example #22
Example #23 (Seki missed by White during "Play")
Example #24 (Two-stage Ko)
Score: Both Black and White will get three points of territory, so resulting it will be zero.
There is no need to play at "a" for either side nor to connect at "b" or "c" to get territory for White, as stated in Nihon Kiin rules.
These rules state the result as "Seki", giving a resulting score of zero, too.
Example #25 (Double-Ko Seki)
06-01: #5, #6
-------------------------------------------------
Hi, Robert,
One suggestion for your rules' text, one (may be temporarily) general conclusion of mine, one question on "precedence", all further explained below.
- It would like "A string is 'independently alive' if its player moving second can force to get a two-eye-formation on (all of) its intersections." (was "at least one") more. (>>> #1)
- It seems to me that there will be no user-friendly algorithm for "Determination of the independently alive strings" (respective "Evaluate") that will match Japanese-style results for 100 % of the case classes. To keep the whole text user-friendly, adding some precedence will be a valid method. (>>> #2 ff.)
- But: Do you think that the precedence concerning "One-eyed Triple-Ko" is really necessary (>>> #8) ?
Explanation will follow the course of 1989 Nihon Kiin rules' examples of Life & Death. Please assume unmarked bordering stones as being "independently alive".
I will hide examples, which evaluation will give the same result as 1989 Nihon Kiin rules.
I will hide evaluation with "my ideas", when giving the same result as "user-friendly".
I hope I applied "user-friendly" correct.
Example #1 (Three points without capturing)
Score is three points of territory for Black.
= independently alive (here: single stone has successor that can be connected to "independently alive" = independently alive (here: single stone has NO successor that can be connected to "independently alive" = not independently aliveScore is zero points.
= not independently aliveScore is zero points.
= "stable" = "removable""Traditional" score had been "three points for White".
Example #2 (Seki)
Example #3 (Hanezeki)
Example #4
White's chains will become prisoners.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see the position as Seki, due to the unclear scope of "placing another stone that cannot be captured", which cannot be board-wide.
Example #5 (x-points without capturing & Seki)
(edited: Black's chains are "independently alive)
All of White's chains will become prisoners.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see the position as Seki, due to the unclear scope of "placing another stone that cannot be captured", which cannot be board-wide.
White's right-hand chain will become prisoners.
White's right-hand chain will become prisoners.
Example #6 (Position before long life)
(edited: White's single stone is "independently alive")
Score is 3 points for White.
Nihon Kiin rules see all of Black's chains dead.
= "removable"Example #7 (Bent-Four)
Example #8 (Triple Ko with an eye on one side)
Black's chains will become prisoners.
= independently aliveScore is zero.
Usually "cycle" during Analysis is equivalent to "not independently alive".
Why not in this situation here, too ?
Why torpedoing the consistent structure of "user-friendly" with this sole and only exception ?
Example #9 (Direct Ko)
Example #10 (Approach-move Ko)
Example #11 (Moonshine Ko)
Example #12 (Mannen Ko)
Example #13 (Seki)
Example #14 (Teire for Seki)
Score is zero.
It is NOT necessary for White to play at "a", as with Nihon Kiin rules.
Example #15 (Bent-Four & Ko as Teire)
Example #16 (Double-Ko Seki & Ko & Teire)
Score is zero.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see all of White's chains being dead, due to the undefined "collapse of the Seki".
Example #17 (Bent-Four & Ko & Double-Ko Seki)
Score is zero.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see Black's upper left 3-stone chain alive and all of White's chains being dead, due to the undefined "collapse of the Seki.
Example #18 (Bent-Four & Double-Ko Seki)
Black's chain in the top left corner will become prisoners.
Nihon Kiin rules inconsistently see all of Black's chain dead, due to the undefined "collapse of the Seki".
Example #19 (Bent-Four & Ko & 3-point Nakade)
Example #20 (Bent-Four & Ko & 4-point Nakade)
Example #21 (Bent-Four & Ko & 5-point Nakade)
Example #22
Example #23 (Seki missed by White during "Play")
Example #24 (Two-stage Ko)
Score: Both Black and White will get three points of territory, so resulting it will be zero.
There is no need to play at "a" for either side nor to connect at "b" or "c" to get territory for White, as stated in Nihon Kiin rules.
These rules state the result as "Seki", giving a resulting score of zero, too.
Example #25 (Double-Ko Seki)
Last edited by Cassandra on Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
The major reason for using "at least one" is Chris Dams's proof, which relies on this. (Maybe one can prove it also for "all" or maybe not. ALA there is no such proof, one can rely on only "at least one".) Further reasons are that J1989 uses the "at least one" approach and that examples seem to suggest it, too. I have not seen one example from a Japanese source with a comment / variation suggesting the "all" approach.
The 1-eye-triple-ko-with-external-ko precedent is needed to explain J1989. As far as my personal opinion is concerned, the precedents would be thrown away faster than you can watch:) As to your #8 question, do not ask me - ask Sakai Takeshi, major author of J1989!
I have not checked whether the examples under your rules or the Nihon Kiin comments are analysed correctly you. Although I have checked carefully, I think under "user-friendly" you have made the following mistakes:
#5, middle B string: independently alive!
#6, single W stone: independently alive!
These examples I have not checked at all for "user-friendly" so far because several move-sequences have to be studied carefully for each string in each example:
#8 (without precedental rule), #16, #17, #18, #23.
The 1-eye-triple-ko-with-external-ko precedent is needed to explain J1989. As far as my personal opinion is concerned, the precedents would be thrown away faster than you can watch:) As to your #8 question, do not ask me - ask Sakai Takeshi, major author of J1989!
I have not checked whether the examples under your rules or the Nihon Kiin comments are analysed correctly you. Although I have checked carefully, I think under "user-friendly" you have made the following mistakes:
#5, middle B string: independently alive!
#6, single W stone: independently alive!
These examples I have not checked at all for "user-friendly" so far because several move-sequences have to be studied carefully for each string in each example:
#8 (without precedental rule), #16, #17, #18, #23.
-
Cassandra
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1326
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:33 am
- Rank: German 1 Kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
RobertJasiek wrote:The major reason for using "at least one" is Chris Dams's proof, which relies on this. (Maybe one can prove it also for "all" or maybe not. ALA there is no such proof, one can rely on only "at least one".) Further reasons are that J1989 uses the "at least one" approach and that examples seem to suggest it, too. I have not seen one example from a Japanese source with a comment / variation suggesting the "all" approach.
Yes, there may be some suggestion, but I think that this approach cannot be correct (at least I don't like it). And it is a source for inconsistencies within the examples. For example, "life" is made for the single White stone in example #1 through playing White stones, where proviously no White stone had been.
I have not checked whether the examples under your rules or the Nihon Kiin comments are analysed correctly you. Although I have checked carefully, I think under "user-friendly" you have made the following mistakes:
#5, middle B string: independently alive!
#6, single W stone: independently alive!
These examples I have not checked at all for "user-friendly" so far because several move-sequences have to be studied carefully for each string in each example:
#8 (without precedental rule), #16, #17, #18, #23.
Some examples had been a kind of snapshot, so I will check again.
Just after a first look at #5: You are right with the status of Black's middle chain.
But then White's 3-stone chain on the right will become prisoners.
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
An approach with such a great success to unify two life systems should be called correct:)
What do you call inconsistencies? First define what you mean, then apply it.
#1: Life of the single stone: That is part of the nature of capturable-2.
If you really want to be all that consistent, then go all the way to its end and define: Consistent is what already is a two-eye-formation. (And then I will ask you: Why not dissolve all sekis and disturbing lifes until we have partitioned the board into two-eye-formations?!)
What do you call inconsistencies? First define what you mean, then apply it.
#1: Life of the single stone: That is part of the nature of capturable-2.
If you really want to be all that consistent, then go all the way to its end and define: Consistent is what already is a two-eye-formation. (And then I will ask you: Why not dissolve all sekis and disturbing lifes until we have partitioned the board into two-eye-formations?!)
-
Cassandra
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1326
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:33 am
- Rank: German 1 Kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
RobertJasiek wrote:An approach with such a great success to unify two life systems should be called correct
The volcano is sleeping temporarily, isn't it ?
What do you call inconsistencies? First define what you mean, then apply it.
I'll try to define later. Perhaps it will become clearer what I mean further down here in my posting.
#1: Life of the single stone: That is part of the nature of capturable-2.
But life of this single stone does not follow from application of "user-friendly".
So I'll have to study "capturable-2" for a deeper understanding of your concept and to try to find a way how we can come together.
In the meantime let's have a look on this mysterious stone in the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules that cannot be captured after some other stones of the same colour have been captured.
First of all, it is important to know that there is no plural in Japanese. Whether 石 is "stones" or "stone" can be made accessible by the context of the text only. So it may be somewhat difficult to grasp what is really meant, especially in a rule text (which securely could be written more well-defined in Japanese, too).
In my amateurish opinion (I'm not the expert for Japanese) the original Japanese text could also be interpreted as
Stones that have become reborn (that is have got a successor of the same colour on its primary board points) and cannot be captured (any more) after they had been captured (earlier), are called living stones.
But you are right when you say that the above sentence does not give the application within the 1989 Nihon Kiin rules examples.
The original comment to the respective rule clause shows positions of Snap-Back only. But Snap-Back is not a problem at all. For example, ...
... there is a White stone on the same marked board point in both diagrams.
Nakade stones inside a "dead" opponent's group provide no difficulties at all, too.
The marked board points are occupied (or could be occupied) by White's stones in both diagrams. Generally speaking, a White stone may be succeeded by an eye-point, too.
The real problems arise at least in examples #1, #4, and #5.
The difference between "at least one" and "all of" for Black's group has been shown in my "status for the Nihon Kiin examples" posting. It may become a minor or even insignificant one when realizing what happens with White's groups in #1, #4, and #5.
White's primary stone has got a Black successor.
The "new" crossed White stones are successors of two of Black's stones.
Let's look for the Nihon Kiin status of White's upper side group.
One of White's "new" stones on the left is a successor of one of Black's stones. The other one is successor of an empty board point.
None of the stones of White's chain in evaluation has got a successor.
What is very important in my opinion: White's captured stones and her "new" ones are situated within two areas of the board that are separated by independently alive groups from each other.
Evaluation sequence for White's single stone in the corner is as for example #1, so the result will be the same (this stone itself has no successor). The status of White's 3-stone chain on the right remains.
Two of White's "new" stones on the left are successors of two of Black's stones.
None of the stones of White's group in evaluation has got a successor.
Again, both areas of the board ("captured" vs. "new") are separated by the independently alive Black group in the middle. This equals the "#4-effect".
If we take the results of #1, #4, and #5 together (1989 Nihon Kiin rules claim that all of White's groups are "alive") we can get an idea of what deeper concept is applied within the examples for White's chains. I would give this concept the name "borrowing life" (the term "conditional life" would mix up with the usage for potential life in Ko-situations during "Play"):
If and only if
- the capture of White's chain of stones under evaluation by Black enables White (= she can "force" it)
- to occupy at least one board point with a "permanent" stone (= it cannot be captured thereafter)
- that otherwise (= Black does not insist on capturing White's chain) remains occupied by one of Black's stones or empty
It will be no surprise that I do not like this concept at all.
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
Do not confuse "user-friendly reading of a particular ruleset" with "user-friendly rules"! The Simple Rules are user-friendly rules. J1989 are not. Only their reading can be made a bit user-friendly.
Not a single stone lives for itself. "independently alive" is a per-string property though.
I have been aware of the missing plural in Japanese. This implies a duty to provide context where necessary. Like expressing singular as "one stone".
(Will read the rest of your message later.)
Not a single stone lives for itself. "independently alive" is a per-string property though.
I have been aware of the missing plural in Japanese. This implies a duty to provide context where necessary. Like expressing singular as "one stone".
(Will read the rest of your message later.)
-
Harleqin
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 921
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:31 am
- Rank: German 2 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 401 times
- Been thanked: 164 times
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
Cassandra wrote:
Let's look for the Nihon Kiin status of White's upper side group.
One of White's "new" stones on the left is a successor of one of Black's stones. The other one is successor of an empty board point.
None of the stones of White's chain in evaluation has got a successor.
What is very important in my opinion: White's captured stones and her "new" ones are situated within two areas of the board that are separated by independently alive groups from each other.
The corner group is not independently alive, is it?
Compare this also to the following:
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.
-
Cassandra
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1326
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:33 am
- Rank: German 1 Kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
Harleqin wrote:The corner group is not independently alive, is it?
Compare this also to the following:
Black's corner 3-stone chain in #4 can be forced into a 2-eye-formation, so it is "independently alive".
Both of Black's corner chains in #2 cannot.
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
-
Cassandra
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1326
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:33 am
- Rank: German 1 Kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
RobertJasiek wrote:Do not confuse "user-friendly reading of a particular ruleset" with "user-friendly rules"! The Simple Rules are user-friendly rules. J1989 are not. Only their reading can be made a bit user-friendly.
"user-friedly" in the subscript of the diagrams refers to the "... reading" rules in your primary posting.
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
-
Harleqin
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 921
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:31 am
- Rank: German 2 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 401 times
- Been thanked: 164 times
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
Cassandra wrote:Harleqin wrote:The corner group is not independently alive, is it?
Compare this also to the following:
Black's corner 3-stone chain in #4 can be forced into a 2-eye-formation, so it is "independently alive".
Both of Black's corner chains in #2 cannot.
In #2, it is a white chain that is of interest.
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.
-
Cassandra
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1326
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:33 am
- Rank: German 1 Kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
Harleqin wrote:In #2, it is a white chain that is of interest.
After Black 1, the first move of the evaluation of the status(es) of White's chain(s), none of White's chains can be forced into a 2-eye-formation.
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
Unlike you, I am not worried about new stones occurring beyond partition lines by independently alive stones. It is similar to an exchange due to a ko fight. Japanese rules should not be viewed as having only one kind of locality but rather they have a hierarchy of locality from global via ko exchange environment, local-2, independently alive group region, two-eye-formation to living string.
There is also the process from unsettled to settled (with or without long cycles). Often it is unsettled shapes that let us wonder a lot what exactly "local" should be.
Not "Local is beautiful" but "Terminal is easy" should be the maxime.
What you look for as a common feature of #1 to #5 is capturable-2. But I said so before.
There is also the process from unsettled to settled (with or without long cycles). Often it is unsettled shapes that let us wonder a lot what exactly "local" should be.
Not "Local is beautiful" but "Terminal is easy" should be the maxime.
What you look for as a common feature of #1 to #5 is capturable-2. But I said so before.
-
Cassandra
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1326
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:33 am
- Rank: German 1 Kyu
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
RobertJasiek wrote:What you look for as a common feature of #1 to #5 is capturable-2. But I said so before.
Yeah, capturable-2 seems to make the difference. When combined with a non-stone-like treatment of a chain.
Please find attached a table, in which I tried to compare your J2003 (as far as I understood it) with my idea, applied on several classes of generalised positions.
There are only two classes with a deverging result (in respect to what will become independently alive / "2-eyed" respectively "dead").
Both have in common capturable-2 and a heterogeneous treatment of what had been a chain.
That's what I suspected before, concerning 1989 Nihon Kiin rules, and referred to as "not being consistent".
During "Play", a chain of stones behaves like a single stone. It is treated as a unit. The unit has liberties, the unit can be taken of the board only in toto.
Why suddenly (after crossing the bridge between "Play" and "Evaluate") allowing the board-points that had been occupied by such a unit not to be handled in common ?
Why suddenly claiming one of two statuses, possessed by one fraction of the units primary points, for the entire unit ?
EDIT:
Corrected "Comparison.pdf"
- Attachments
-
- Comparison.pdf
- (16.71 KiB) Downloaded 465 times
Last edited by Cassandra on Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6273
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
Re: User-friendly Reading of the Japanese 1989 Rules
No. The different stones of a string do NOT have different statuses. Under J2003, the available life and death statuses (before an in-seki classification) in a final-position are:
black uncapturable string
black capturable-1 string
black capturable-2 string
black dead string
white uncapturable string
white capturable-1 string
white capturable-2 string
white dead string
That each hypothetical-sequence of the analysis of a particular string does various things (like establishing a permanent-stone on one intersection of the analysed string's intersections) does not change that.
If you really wanted strict consistency, then you would need stone scoring: Only the intersection colour determines its score contribution.
black uncapturable string
black capturable-1 string
black capturable-2 string
black dead string
white uncapturable string
white capturable-1 string
white capturable-2 string
white dead string
That each hypothetical-sequence of the analysis of a particular string does various things (like establishing a permanent-stone on one intersection of the analysed string's intersections) does not change that.
If you really wanted strict consistency, then you would need stone scoring: Only the intersection colour determines its score contribution.