Japanese Rules Examples 16 - 18

[RobertJasiek]

Here is a citation from my private example study of 2004-05-28, which conveys application under J2003/v34 (Japanese 2003 Rules). IIRC, the changes to v35 and v35a did not affect the study of these examples. For conventions, see

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/convent.html
"P" is "ko-pass" and "p" is pass.
" U" means " uncapturable".
"F5" means "rare".
The J2003 statuses agree to the declared statuses in the J1989 official commentary. I have not studied again now the move-sequences I listed, but you can have fun looking at them, to see if you have considered all relevant sequences.

Code: Select all

Example 4602 (II.16)
<34>
11x6
F5

final-position

. 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 O . O . O # # # O

intersections

b c d e O f O # g h O
a # # O O O O # # O O
# # . # # O # # i j O
. # # # O # # # # O O
# # O O O O O # # k O
O O O . O . O # # # O
 
Hypothetical-sequences and hypothetical-strategy:
Omitted.
Life and death:
The right big black string is U:
O[gjPpihPp]*
etc.

The right big white string is neither uncapturable nor capturable-1:
#[bpedcpePf..]
#[bPedcpePf..]
#[bgjPedcpePf..]
#[bgjPedcihPegf..]
#[bgjPedcihPePf..]
#[bgjPeif..]
etc.

local-2 for each of the white top or right
strings:

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 O 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 O O O O O 2 2 2 2
O O O . O . O 2 2 2 2

Each of the white top or right strings is dead:
#[bpedcpePf..]
#[bPedcpePf..]
#[bgjPedcpePf..]
#[bgjPedcihPegf..]
#[bgjPedcihPePf..]
#[bgjPeif..]
etc.

The black string h is capturable-1:
O[gjPbihPedcgjPePf..]
etc.

Other details: omitted.
Hypothetical-analysis:
Omitted.
Determination of the result:
Mostly omitted.
Score = 44
Note:
It is particularly noteworthy that the black string h is capturable-1.



Example 4603 (II.17)
<34>
9x8
F5?

final-position

# # # . 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 O O O O
# # # # O O . O .

intersections

d e f g O # h i O
c O O O O # # O O
O O O O O # j k O
b O O O O # # O O
a # # # O # # l O
# # # # # O # # #
. # . # O O O O O
# # # # O O . O .
 
Hypothetical-sequences and hypothetical-strategy:
Omitted.
Life and death:
The right big black string is U:
O[hkPpjiPp]*
etc.

The right big white string is neither uncapturable nor capturable-1:
#[bhkPcgedcPf..]
#[bhkPcgejiPdhkPcfdjiPcechdpp]
#[bhkPcgejidcPf..]
etc.

The upper left black string is not U:
O[cbg..]
etc.

The upper left big white string is neither uncapturable nor capturable-1:
#[bPapcgedcPfpp]
#[bPapcgedchfpp]
#[bPapcgehkPdjiPcfdhkPcecjdpp]
#[bPahkPcgedcPfpp]
#[bpapcgedcPfpp]
#[bhkPcgedcPfpp]
etc.

local-2 for each of the upper and right white
strings:

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 O O O O O
2 2 2 2 O O . O .

The white string a is dead:
#[bPapcgedcPfpp]
#[bPapcgedchfpp]
#[bPapcgehkPdjiPcfdhkPcecjdpp]
#[bPahkPcgedcPfpp]
#[bpapcgedcPfpp]
#[bhkPcgedcPfpp]
etc.

Likewise, the other upper and right white strings are dead.

The black string d-e-f is capturable-1:
O[cbgePahkPdfdpepp]
O[hkPpcbgePafdpp]
etc.

The black string i is capturable-1:
O[cbgePahkPdfdpe..]
O[hkPpcbgePafd..]
O[hkPbjiPahkPcgejiPdhkPcfdjiPcechd..]
O[hkPbjiPahkPcgedcPf..]
O[hkPbjiPahkPcgedcjf..]
etc.

Other details: omitted.
Hypothetical-analysis:
Omitted.
Determination of the result:
Mostly omitted.
Score = 54.
Notes:
It is particularly noteworthy that the black string i is capturable-1.

White should have captured three bent-4 stones during the alternating-sequence.



Example 4604 (II.18)
<34>
8x5
F5

final-position

. O . # O . O #
O # # # O O # #
. # O O O # . #
# # O O O O # #
O O O O O O . #

intersections

c d e # O f g #
b # # # O O # #
a # O O O h i #
# # O O O O # #
O O O O O O j #
 
Hypothetical-sequences and hypothetical-strategy:
Omitted.
Life and death:
The upper left white strings and the big white string are U:
#[fiPphgPp]*
etc.

The black strings are neither uncapturable nor capturable-1:
O[cpifPpeadcbPepjpgpp]
O[cfiPeadcbPepjpgpp]
etc.

The white string g is capturable-1:
#[fiPchgPaebcdfa..]
#[fiPchgPaebfiPc..]
#[fiPcpaebhgPcfiPadbhgPacaba..]
etc.

local-2 for each of the black strings:

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Each black string is dead:
O[cpifPpeadcbPepjpgpp]
O[cfiPeadcbPepjpgpp]
etc.

Other details: omitted.
Hypothetical-analysis:
Omitted.
Determination of the result:
Mostly omitted.
Score = -36. 

[asura]

Thank you for the sequences. I think I got all relevant sequences and the right states.
But I didn't noticed in Example 4603 (II.17) that white could capture the three bent-4 stones during the alternating-sequence to gain a point.

Do you agree that your one ko-pass for all ko-bans do nothing more (EDIT: in these examples) than preventing cycles?

[RobertJasiek]

Not sure I understand your question. Anyway, I don't know when I find time to have a look at my own sequences again. Busy.

[Cassandra]

... one ko-pass for all ko-bans do nothing more (EDIT: in these examples) than preventing cycles?

Yes.

That's natural. If you ever want to enable approaching the Double-Ko (in these examples) by actual play, it is a must to exclude Triple-Ko.

This is the reasoning for my statement in the other thread, that the "official" comment (especially the "collapse of the Seki") sounds like "consider the status of the 'anything else' first, independent from the Double-Ko".

Contrary to that, the method Robert found is conclusive, and consistent (within the body of his rules).

[asura]

Whith ko-pass in j2003 to make a ko-pass in the double-ko is no ko-threat (and the opponent can continue with the capture sequence elsewhere), but in j1989 you have to respond a ko-pass in the double-ko with making a ko-pass for the double-ko, too (and so on - so that you never can capture something outside the double-ko without giving up the double-ko).

From all that I know (and also from that I read in j2003) it was somehow clear to me that this is the intention with your changed ko-pass rule. I got a bit confused because yesterday you said there is another/additional reason for changing the ko-pass rule.

If so I would like to see a position where the one ko-pass lifts all ko-bans is required for different reasons than in these examples.
But it's not that important. I can imagine it might be hard to recall or time consuming to find it if you don't know atm. As my thinking explains things without contradictions I beleave it's right for now - and maybe might be surprised later on