No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

[RobertJasiek]

Western rules tend to be beginner-oriented, I wouldn't explain deeper meaning into this.

There is more meaning involved, such as
- different views on which are the best details (suicide or no suicide, which superko variant, how tolerant should the agreement phase be),
- specific language needs after translations,
- historical context of creation.

[RobertJasiek]

it is natural to count territory minus prisoners minus dead stones

Haha, good one;) The natural thing is either what the New Zealanders do or fill until a player can't fill any more:)

[Pio2001]

Nevertheless, change has occurred (and I have played a role there especially towards clarification as far as politically possible) but it is all subject to politics so change progresses slowly like a molasses ko.

Thank you for these interesting infos !

[Pio2001]

it is natural to count territory minus prisoners minus dead stones

Haha, good one;) The natural thing is either what the New Zealanders do or fill until a player can't fill any more:)

Oops, I didn't see the irony of my sentence.
What I was meaning is that on a real board, it is more convenient to count the final score in the Japanese style, and endgame values are used to be counted in territory.
I don't think that go players would accept to stop counting using prisoners and adopt a pure area counting method, like we can see here in the Ke Jie vs Alphago match (counting performed from 4:52:11 to 4:54:35 in the video) : https://youtu.be/Z-HL5nppBnM?t=17529

[Cassandra]

Thank you for the link Bill. It allows me to give you a more convincing position:

$$B
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | . X X X X X X X X a X X X X X X X X . |
$$ -----------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X |
$$ | . X X X X X X X X a X X X X X X X X . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

If white stones are dead then the black score is (17 * 17 * 2) + 5 = 583 points
Assuming now that 582 black stones have been captured, and assuming a komi 0.5, then the result is a black win by 0.5 points.
That means that black must avoid to capture at "a" because she will loose one point and the game (white will simply pass without trying to live)
Both players agree to stop the game and now the confirmation phase begin. The problem is now the following : nobody knows the god sequence saying if white stones are really dead under hypothetical play. The result of the game is simply unkonwn because the humans are not strong enough! BTW I doubt the current computers are able to give us the correct result.

Even assuming that White did NEVER intend playing the double atari of a (to win), it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to reach that position by alternating play (NO passes in between).

It is EVEN THE MORE IMPOSSIBLE that White could have generated a SURPLUS of 582 prisoners. Simply because White's stones will have to remain on the board (assuming that we will generate Black prisoners only) after having captured Black ones.

You cannot "prove" a supposed weakness of a rule set by using an example that can be reached only by very young kids putting Black and White Smarties onto the go board.

[Gérard TAILLE]

Even assuming that White did NEVER intend playing the double atari of a (to win), it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to reach that position by alternating play (NO passes in between).

yes I agree but with a good number of white passes it is easy to reach the position with legal moves.

[lightvector]

You cannot "prove" a supposed weakness of a rule set by using an example that can be reached only by very young kids putting Black and White Smarties onto the go board.

Well... most rulesets for other games have the property that upon reaching a terminal position, the result can be unambiguously and correctly determined by players of even moderate experience (or determined that the game is not legally over yet), for any possible position that could ever be constructed, regardless of how artificial such a position is.

And this even sometimes has practical consequences, not just theoretical ones. There's a reason there are almost no computer programs that correctly implement Japanese scoring in Go without getting some real-life corner cases wrong, even if they are still very rare. Whereas there are tons of independent and correct implementations of Chess, or Hex, or Xiangqi, or Shogi, or Pente, or Reversi, or Havannah, or any other number of games, such that those implementations don't have any corner cases whatsoever where they fail to apply the rules correctly, not even absurd artificial positions, so long as the positions are still legal.

If a ruleset becomes ill-defined, or defined but so complex as to be impossible to apply, even in a position that only "very young kids" could reach... that actually is a weakness of those rules relative to almost every other abstract strategy game, which do not have such a problem.

[Cassandra]

Dear "legalists",

I am very afraid that you did not really get the point.

The examples given here in this thread lack a decisive amount of internal logic:
-- During their creation process, both players play extremely kiddish. If you don't like this reference to an infantile behaviour, utilise "irreal" for replacement.
-- After that creation process, you ask a professional question about the application of a certain rule set.
-- Before you try to answer this kind of questions, you have thrown your practical knowledge of the game overboard.

Let's forget for a while that Go is a game for two and assume that is was really possible to capture a surplus of 582 Black stones in the last example.
Then we can also assume for sure that BOTH sides played with an attitude to LOSE the game, NOT to win it. But then -- like lightning out of the blue -- that attitude turned into its opposite, and suddenly WINning the game became the issue???

Even if we accept that irreal change of attitude, we must not throw away our practical knowledge of the game!
If the game really was close at the position shown, it would not be finished. Black would simply capture White's stones. As you certainly know, the smallest living group in the centre of the board contains ten stones. We can expect for sure that Black will be able to create more that only two points of additional territory with his ten tenuki stones.
In practice, White will have to sacrifice a lot of stones, in order to get two eyes for her remaining group on the board.

Black will simply win the game by capturing White's eyeless centre group in that examplary position. No matter which ruleset you apply.

[lightvector]

For the position given, everyone agrees that the position itself has zero real-world consequence, and it is of course "decisively internally illogical" to care about the ruling of that position, with the given absurd assumptions of how it came to be. You don't need to spend so much effort arguing that, it's already obvious. People already did get the point, they're making a *different* point that you're not addressing.

Which is that the mere fact that it even exists at all, is one of the many hints of the broader nature of the ruleset, and it is this broader nature, not that position itself, that does occasionally have some minor consequences - such as the fact that the Japanese rules are only computer-implementable with enormous difficulty, whereas many versions of the Chinese rules are relatively easy to implement flawlessly.

Sometimes, a thing can be itself not relevant or consequential, not even in the slightest, and yet still be one of many small indicators of something *else* that is consequential.

[Cassandra]

Dear lightvector,

I understand your point of view.

But Gérard provided an example for a "real world" discussion.

The fathers of the rules did not have their applicability in the age of AI in mind.
Indeed, the application of territory-style rules (for the scoring process) presupposes a certain amount of knowledge of the game, which naturally is very difficult to mirror with AI.
Area-style rules do not have such prerequisites, and so are naturally easier to implement.

Therefore, if you wanted a discussion concerning the (probably problematic) application of a ruleset in the "real" (i.e. human) world, it would be indispensable to have the example created with Go stones, not with Smarties.

But if you wanted to discuss the (probably problematic) application of a ruleset in the world of AI, the opposite might be more constructive, yielding faster results.


+ + + + + + + + + +

The starting position of Igo Hatsuyôron 120 can be reached by LEGAL moves (NO pass included).

I think that there is a certain probability that I (a poor Kyu player holding Black) would win a game against any AI (a professional Dan player holding White) that has not been specifically trained on that problem.

==> Don't try to apply a ruleset (in the "real" world) on positions that it has not been designed for.

[RobertJasiek]

Rules are supposed to apply to each legal position and it is legal that players make strategic mistakes. Therefore, rules must apply very well to each legal position.

[Cassandra]

Rules are supposed to apply to each legal position and it is legal that players make strategic mistakes. Therefore, rules must apply very well to each legal position.

Robert Jasiek:
"According to my (Western) understanding of the matter, rules are supposed to apply to each legal position and it is legal that players make strategic mistakes. Therefore, rules must apply very well to each legal position."

Nihon Kiin:
"Our rules are supposed to apply to professional play under the responsibility of the Nihon Kiin and the Kansai Kiin. The players are supposed to operate these rules in the spitit of good sense and mutual trust."

In these rules, you will not find anything about "each legal position". "Legality" is assigned to moves only.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

In addition, the result of a mutual agreement to use Smarties, instead of Go stones, cannot be called a "series of strategic mistakes".

That line of play -- created with Go stones -- would indeed contain a series of mistakes.
However, if created with Smarties, every single move is played on purpose, and therefore cannot be mistaken. As a matter of course, the aim of the Smarties agreement is not compatible with the aim of the GAME of Go.

[RobertJasiek]

Robert Jasiek:
"According to my (Western) understanding of the matter, rules are supposed to apply to each legal position and it is legal that players make strategic mistakes. Therefore, rules must apply very well to each legal position."

While I understand what you are trying to say, please cite properly! I have not written "According to my (Western) understanding of the matter". To say that what I have written was according to my (Western) understanding of the matter, you might write that [citation or indirect speech of my writing] was, in your opinion, according to my (Western) understanding of the matter.

Nihon Kiin:
"Our rules are supposed to apply to professional play under the responsibility of the Nihon Kiin and the Kansai Kiin. The players are supposed to operate these rules in the spitit of good sense and mutual trust."

In these rules, you will not find anything about "each legal position".

While tournament rules can be written specifically for a particular organisation, such as the Nihon Kiin, rules of play should be written for everybody (in this case, wishing to apply Japanese-style rules) because the game is for everybody.

A central purpose of rules of play is to always specify what is legal play. Failing to do so is a major flaw of a ruleset. Especially one for tournament play.

Thereby, plain application of the rules of play always enables a spirit of good sense and mutual trust without any problem of having to interpret what the latter might mean other than application of the rules of play.

[Cassandra]

Robert Jasiek:
"According to my (Western) understanding of the matter, rules are supposed to apply to each legal position and it is legal that players make strategic mistakes. Therefore, rules must apply very well to each legal position."

While I understand what you are trying to say, please cite properly! I have not written "According to my (Western) understanding of the matter". To say that what I have written was according to my (Western) understanding of the matter, you might write that [citation or indirect speech of my writing] was, in your opinion, according to my (Western) understanding of the matter.

You might have overlooked the "proper" citation of yours that started my posting ...

The text in quotation marks is my best guess of what you should have written.

Nihon Kiin:
"Our rules are supposed to apply to professional play under the responsibility of the Nihon Kiin and the Kansai Kiin. The players are supposed to operate these rules in the spitit of good sense and mutual trust."

In these rules, you will not find anything about "each legal position".

While tournament rules can be written specifically for a particular organisation, such as the Nihon Kiin, rules of play should be written for everybody (in this case, wishing to apply Japanese-style rules) because the game is for everybody.

The text in quotation marks is my best guess of the Nihon Kiin's intention of creating their 1989 Rules.

I am very sure that you already know that the Nihon Kiin 1989 Rules are NO tournament rules. These do not mention anything about "tournaments".

A central purpose of rules of play is to always specify what is legal play. Failing to do so is a major flaw of a ruleset. Especially one for tournament play.

I am very sure that you already know which tyes of moves are NOT allowed / forbidden by the Nihon Kiin 1989 Rules. This implies that every other type of move is legal.

As I already stated above, these rules do NOT specify anything about "tournaments".

Thereby, plain application of the rules of play always enables a spirit of good sense and mutual trust without any problem of having to interpret what the latter might mean other than application of the rules of play.

Again, this is YOUR opinion.

But it does not match the Nihon Kiin 1989 Rules.
These rules have it the other way round. "A spirit of good sense and mutual trust" is considered an absolutly necessary precondition for the desired application of the rules.

Nowhere is stated that easing that application was one of the aims for creating that ruleset.

[Gérard TAILLE]

The starting position of Igo Hatsuyôron 120 can be reached by LEGAL moves (NO pass included).

Cassandra, can you show us how you can reach this position by using Go stones instead of Smarties?