research of ancient weiqi rules in 2 Chinese classic books

[pgwq]

After amendement of many times, part 2 is ok now.
part 2: ancient rules in texts & annotations of 13 Chapters Classic at https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=17866

Now,writting part 3.

[pgwq]

The lack of passes gives an explanation for the group tax. Who is going to make a play that puts his own living group into atari? OC, if you are simply placing stones on the board after the play is over in order to score the game, that does not matter.

"Group tax" is the "tax" for group alive forever on the board.
and the simply pass is not good inventation.

At the times of Dunhuang, after "both parties overflow"("两溢"), the game is end.
Both parties overflow is pass & hand over prisoner eachother.

Many people are too deep into the Japanese go rules Or the so-called modern go rules, including many Chinese.

[Bill Spight]

The lack of passes gives an explanation for the group tax. Who is going to make a play that puts his own living group into atari? OC, if you are simply placing stones on the board after the play is over in order to score the game, that does not matter.

"Group tax" is the "tax" for group alive forever on the board.
and the simply pass is not good inventation.

At the times of Dunhuang, after "both parties overflow"("两溢"), the game is end.
Both parties overflow is pass & hand over prisoner eachother.

Many people are too deep into the Japanese go rules Or the so-called modern go rules, including many Chinese.

Well, pass is a modern idea in go rules. And I proposed passing and handing over a stone to the opponent in 1977. Nobody responded, yeah, yeah, we know.

Edit: Ing rules defined pass as a kind of move in the 1970s. In 1932 Yasunaga's rules (constitution) proposed ending the game with 3 passes, referred to as giving up the right to make a play: 終局、交互着手の権利を連続３回放棄せる場合。Is there anything earlier?

[pgwq]

The lack of passes gives an explanation for the group tax. Who is going to make a play that puts his own living group into atari? OC, if you are simply placing stones on the board after the play is over in order to score the game, that does not matter.

"Group tax" is the "tax" for group alive forever on the board.
and the simply pass is not good inventation.

At the times of Dunhuang, after "both parties overflow"("两溢"), the game is end.
Both parties overflow is pass & hand over prisoner eachother.

Many people are too deep into the Japanese go rules Or the so-called modern go rules, including many Chinese.

Well, pass is a modern idea in go rules. And I proposed passing and handing over a stone to the opponent in 1977. Nobody responded, yeah, yeah, we know.

Because it will let group tax back to Japanese go rules, and which was tampered with by Japanese.

Some Chinese are trying to restore the traditional Weiqi rules, including me.

[Bill Spight]

The lack of passes gives an explanation for the group tax. Who is going to make a play that puts his own living group into atari? OC, if you are simply placing stones on the board after the play is over in order to score the game, that does not matter.

"Group tax" is the "tax" for group alive forever on the board.
and the simply pass is not good inventation.

At the times of Dunhuang, after "both parties overflow"("两溢"), the game is end.
Both parties overflow is pass & hand over prisoner eachother.

Many people are too deep into the Japanese go rules Or the so-called modern go rules, including many Chinese.

Well, pass is a modern idea in go rules. And I proposed passing and handing over a stone to the opponent in 1977. Nobody responded, yeah, yeah, we know.

Because it will let group tax back to Japanese go rules, and which was tampered with by Japanese.

Some Chinese are trying to restore the traditional Weiqi rules, including me.

I suppose you are aware of No Pass Go with Prisoner Return? See https://senseis.xmp.net/?PrisonerReturn

[pgwq]

In fact, in the times of Dunhuang Classic and Song Dynasty, people were avoiding the last dame profit problem.
Why do they try to avoid this problem? Because they've met.

[pgwq]

I suppose you are aware of No Pass Go with Prisoner Return? See https://senseis.xmp.net/?PrisonerReturn

Prisoner return should be equivalent to handing over own piece.
But I don't know. I only know some of ancient Weiqi rules.

[Bill Spight]

I suppose you are aware of No Pass Go with Prisoner Return? See https://senseis.xmp.net/?PrisonerReturn

Prisoner return should be equivalent to handing over own piece.

With prisoner return you do not need a rule to end play by consecutive passes. With consecutive prisoner return somebody will run out of prisoners to return.

[pgwq]

I suppose you are aware of No Pass Go with Prisoner Return? See https://senseis.xmp.net/?PrisonerReturn

Prisoner return should be equivalent to handing over own piece.

With prisoner return you do not need a rule to end play by consecutive passes. With consecutive prisoner return somebody will run out of prisoners to return.

First,both parties get maximum number of prisoners, <<<<< similar as "both parties overflow(两溢)" of Dunhuang Classic
then, return prisoners, finally see who still has prisoners? <<<< similar as Net Score of prisoners of Dunhuang Classic

Is my analysis correct?

[Bill Spight]

I suppose you are aware of No Pass Go with Prisoner Return? See https://senseis.xmp.net/?PrisonerReturn

Prisoner return should be equivalent to handing over own piece.

With prisoner return you do not need a rule to end play by consecutive passes. With consecutive prisoner return somebody will run out of prisoners to return.

First,both parties get maximum number of prisoners, <<<<< similar as "both parties overflow(两溢)" of Dunhuang Classic
then, return prisoners, finally see who still has prisoners? <<<< similar as Net Score of prisoners of Dunhuang Classic

Is my analysis correct?

I don't understand the Dunhuang Classic well enough to say.

But the only way to get a prisoner in No Pass Go with Prisoner Return is to capture one.

Edit: And as a human, instead of returning a prisoner, if you have one, you should probably suggest stopping play, since returning a prisoner costs you one point.

[pgwq]

I don't understand the Dunhuang Classic well enough to say.

But the only way to get a prisoner in No Pass Go with Prisoner Return is to capture one.

Edit: And as a human, instead of returning a prisoner, if you have one, you should probably suggest stopping play, since returning a prisoner costs you one point.

Please see: https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 90#p261590

[pgwq]

When we say "bent four" we think tend to think of a whole nexus of things which includes a host of things such as sekis, special rulings, liberties, the differences between Japanese, Chinese, Ing rules, etc. To the authors of the ancient Chinese it just meant a nakade shape. Occam's Razor applies. The generally simplistic views of the earliest writers are only to be expected. If they found anything unusual they can be expected to get excited about it and write about it. This happens in the Dunhuang manual with the discovery of the Rule of Six for ladders. (But they were apparently not sophisticated enough to know about ladders that go round corners - go knowledge has to accumulate.

the rule of six for ladders - Chapter II of Dunhuang Classic of Weiqi?
I wrote an article at Hangzhou meeting 2016,that explained chapter II in detail.

The second chapter is not wrong. prof.Cheng-en-yuan（成恩元）'s interpretation is wrong in some places.
I respect him.And I respect ancients.
Some of us did not fully understand the ancient Chinese works, including some Chinese people.
Generally speaking, it is dangerous to study ancient Chinese weiqi from second-hand point of view.

[RobertJasiek]

Bill, Robinson / Olmsted wrote rules with pass in the 1920s. I would not be surprised if pass was an earlier concept in other (e.g., German) games.

[pgwq]

Bill, Robinson / Olmsted wrote rules with pass in the 1920s. I would not be surprised if pass was an earlier concept in other (e.g., German) games.

100 years.

[John Fairbairn]

the rule of six for ladders - Chapter II of Dunhuang Classic of Weiqi?
I wrote an article at Hangzhou meeting 2016,that explained chapter II in detail.

You had already given your real name tucked away in the threads here, but it is good to have this confirmation. Thank you.

For the benefit of others, I think he is underselling himself. That paper (in Chinese) is massive, about 22 dense pages, and it is about kos as much as ladders. My understanding is that the portion about ladders was not specially new, and not controversial, but this was by far the most detailed and helpful exposition. The portion on kos, however, was entirely new and was a major new contribution. It delves into double kos, triple kos, seki-kos etc. This would be the only part relevant to the rule aficionado, I imagine.

In saying that, I am reflecting mainly the views of others that I solicited at the symposium, though at that point almost no-one had read the full paper. We had only heard, as I recall, a 15-minute slide presentation. I found it hard to follow myself, because the Dunhuang language is unusual and elliptic (in parts, it's almost in shopping-list note form, actually), but the author had helpfully put quite a few passages into modern Chinese.

Because of my personal interests, it was naturally the language that interested me most. In particular I found the discussion of the common-or-garden word 行 especially illuminating. It has variant pronunciations (xing or hang or heng, though different again in ancient Chinese), but I was already familiar with that. What was totally new to me though - and great fun - was a sentence that went something like "Confucian scholars say 权, military men say 奇, but go players say 行." The author showed how they were the same (which is actually quite mind-boggling and I'm not sure I entirely followed the argument). But this term (as he shows) is also relevant to the understanding of 路 and 道.

So, I would say the omens for the present contributions on counting are potentially very good if only we can get to see the full depth of the research behind it, rather than the perhaps misleading snippets here. However, at this stage, looking at it purely linguistically rather than through the prism of rules, I still have to wonder if it's an adventurous step too far. But I await developments with great interest.