No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

[RobertJasiek]

As to tournament rules in J1989, see my commentary on them.

You suggest that a spirit of good sense and mutual trust was considered an absolutly necessary precondition for the desired application of the rules.

If that was so, would you say that everybody would know what spirit of good sense and mutual trust should be?

E.g., consider territory surrounded by one player's live stones, of which some are adjacent to dame. You might suggest that a spirit of good sense and mutual trust lets territory be territory. However, J1989, official commentary and application in professional Nihon Kiin games void such territory until the dame are filled. The J1989 spirit of good sense and mutual trust is not absolute but highly ambiguous.

[Cassandra]

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?

I do not remember that I claimed this would be possible.

You simply did not get the point!
Neither standard AI nor standard ruleset are designed to solve ANY legal POSITION that is possible on the Go board.

Has a whole new can of worms (of about the same size as with the ruleset discussions) been opened discussing the problem that standard AI does not play optimal (with the meaning of maximising the final score) endgame sequences? This is just another matter that it has not been designed for.

[Cassandra]

E.g., consider territory surrounded by one player's live stones, of which some are adjacent to dame. You might suggest that a spirit of good sense and mutual trust lets territory be territory. However, J1989, official commentary and application in professional Nihon Kiin games void such territory until the dame are filled. The J1989 spirit of good sense and mutual trust is not absolute but highly ambiguous.

I do not remember that I suggested anything like that.
However, if both players are fine with not counting parts of the board as territory, there is no way to stop them from doing so.

It's the same matter as with the infantile style that is necessary to create a lot of examples that are utilised as examples in the ruleset discussion here:
If one or both players intend to lose the game, there is no way to stop them from doing so.

[Cassandra]

What all your statements seem to to be implying is that the Japanese rules aren't supposed to be a proper ruleset per say but a gentlehominins agreement.

-- How is "proper ruleset" defined?

-- Who has made that definition?

-- Who is the target audience for the application of this definition?

-- Who decides whether this definition is binding?

[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?

I do not remember that I claimed this would be possible.

You simply did not get the point!
Neither standard AI nor standard ruleset are designed to solve ANY legal POSITION that is possible on the Go board.

Has a whole new can of worms (of about the same size as with the ruleset discussions) been opened discussing the problem that standard AI does not play optimal (with the meaning of maximising the final score) endgame sequences? This is just another matter that it has not been designed for.

You say that standard ruleset is not designed to solve ANY legal POSITION that is possible on the Go board.
Obviously I am stupid but I do not understand how do you recognise a position for which the standard ruleset is really designed.



This game begins by two "smarties" moves. Do you conclude that the standard ruleset cannot apply to this game (without knowing if the following moves seem correct or not)?

[RobertJasiek]

there is no way to stop them from doing so.

A sportsmanship-like tournament rule prevents such collusion of creating an arbitrary result in the interest of, in particular, all other participants of the tournament.

[Cassandra]

This game begins by two "smarties" moves. Do you conclude that the standard ruleset cannot apply to this game (without knowing if the following moves seem correct or not)?

Quite obviously, the matter gets more and more infantile.

So far, your examples had roughly as many empty points on the board as are filled in your newest one.
Run out of arguments???

[Cassandra]

there is no way to stop them from doing so.

A sportsmanship-like tournament rule prevents such collusion of creating an arbitrary result in the interest of, in particular, all other participants of the tournament.

Quite obviously, the matter gets more and more infantile.

If I remember correct, the matter so far was related to a ruleset for the GAME.
A regulation in the ruleset for a TOURNAMENT shall be able to do a job that a regulation in the ruleset for a GAME cannot???
Run out of arguments???

[RobertJasiek]

Cassandra, when you introduce a tournament-rules-related issue, then do not blame discussion for also proceeding with tournament rules.

[Gérard TAILLE]

This game begins by two "smarties" moves. Do you conclude that the standard ruleset cannot apply to this game (without knowing if the following moves seem correct or not)?

Quite obviously, the matter gets more and more infantile.

So far, your examples had roughly as many empty points on the board as are filled in your newest one.
Run out of arguments???

Cassandra, I am not arguing, because simply I still do not understand your point. Sorry for that.
What do you mean by saying that standard ruleset is not designed to solve ANY legal POSITION that is possible on the Go board?
IOW, how do you recognize that a position is relevant or not to the standard ruleset? It may be obvious for some positions but what about any other positions like Igo Hatsuyôron 120 and many others?

Be sure I will not try to convince you about the interest of studying irreal positions!
I just try to understand what you consider being a "real" (?) go positions, relevant to the standard ruleset. Nothing else.

[gennan]

Assume komi = 0.5
If the game ends in this position and if the 110 black stones in the upper left corner are considered dead then white wins by 0.5 point.
That means that if, in normal play, white takes effectively these 110 black stones then black is sure to win (because by taking the black stones white plays in her territory and looses one point).
As a consequence, in the position above white has no choice : white passes and the referee has to decide who is winning.
What is the problem. Nobody knows if black can live in the upper left corner (after white makes the capture) and more over nobody knows if black can live under hypothetical play!
Maybe we can conclude to a no result by ignorance (and not due to a explicit loop) ?

After the players pass, the game is over. Then we determine which stones are dead and remove those from the board (and the game will not be resumed afterwards!). Then the score will be determined.
In this case, black's stones in the upper left are obviously dead as is, so white does not have to capture them (not even in hypothetical play) and he wins by 0.5 point.
Where is there any problem? I fail to see it.

[RobertJasiek]

gennan, capturable does not equate death. Look at nakade, snapback and hane-seki.

[gennan]

Indeed. I claim that these stones are obviously dead. Not because they are capturable, but because they are not in a seki and they don't have eyes. I suppose this can be statically evaluated by algorithms such as Benson's.

[RobertJasiek]

The problem of this position is that such a claim must be verified and proved, and this is complex.

[gennan]

How is it complex to determine the status of black's block of stones in this position? It looks extremely simple to me: no eyes, no seki, so it's dead. I think most 25k players would have no trouble to determine this in less than 30 seconds.