No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:49 am

Gérard TAILLE wrote:What do you mean by saying that standard ruleset is not designed to solve ANY legal POSITION that is possible on the Go board?

I assume we can agree that we are talking about (supposed; otherwise there would be no discussion) FINAL positions of the game (i.e. just before the final pass of both players), where your interest is to determine whether
a) any side has to invest another move (in order to win) and / or
b) a certain group of stones can be considered dead outright.

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?

Positions during the ACTIVE game phase are no topic of this thread.

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.

If your interest really is the study of IRREAL positions, my company on your journey ends here. Because then there is no connection whatsoever to the real world. And I like to apologise for having misunderstood your concern from the very beginning.

Would be your interest, however, the discussion of potential RULES BEASTS, it is my understanding that it must be possible to create the position in question in the play phase of a real game, i.e. by alternating moves of both players.

In order to keep the connection to the real world intact, several restrictions of the legal moves apply (no claim to completeness):
-- Do not pass (as long as legal moves are still available on the board that do not cost you points on purpose).
-- Do not fill your own eyes without any need (e.g. to subdivide a larger one into a two-eye-shape, to defend a critical cutting point)
-- If you have multiple options of creating a sure eye, choose the larger one.
-- Do not play a self-atari (unless you have to create a nakade shape, or play a throw-in etc.).
-- Do not sacrifice stones without need.

If you discuss RULES BEASTS that do not cover the entire board, it would be helpful to state that this is a principle representation to ease the discussion, to better highlight the relevant parts of it, etc.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:03 am

gennan wrote: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.

Go back to the learning corner and do read my commentaries on J1989! Understand capturable-1 and capturable-2! Understand that J1989 does NOT (repeat: N O T) define life by two eyes.

Then play the invade at 3-3 to live game.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:08 am

Cassandra wrote: In order to keep the connection to the real world intact, several restrictions of the legal moves apply [...]:
-- Do not pass (as long as legal moves are still available on the board that do not cost you points on purpose).
-- Do not fill your own eyes without any need (e.g. to subdivide a larger one into a two-eye-shape, to defend a critical cutting point)
-- If you have multiple options of creating a sure eye, choose the larger one.
-- Do not play a self-atari (unless you have to create a nakade shape, or play a throw-in etc.).

These do not distinguish "real world" from arcana.

gennan · Post by **gennan** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:41 am

If even that simple final position requires a complex mathematical proof to correctly determine the winner, how is it possible that countless players around the world can score their (much more complicated) games with little effort. Are they all doing it wrong?

gennan · Post by **gennan** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:04 pm

I think I'm starting to understand the point of this hypothetical position.

Japanese rules 1989
Article 7. Life and death
1. Stones are said to be "alive" if they cannot be captured by the opponent, or if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture. Stones which are not alive are said to be "dead."

So the point of this hypothetical position it to exploit the wording of the definition of life and death in article 7.1.

I apologize for the confusion. I guess that I have an informal version of Japanese rules in mind that does imply eyes or seki to live.

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:37 pm

gennan wrote:I think I'm starting to understand the point of this hypothetical position.

Japanese rules 1989
Article 7. Life and death
1. Stones are said to be "alive" if they cannot be captured by the opponent, or if capturing them would enable a new stone to be played that the opponent could not capture. Stones which are not alive are said to be "dead."

So the point of this hypothetical position it to exploit the wording of the definition of life and death in article 7.1.

I apologize for the confusion. I guess that I have an informal version of Japanese rules in mind that does imply eyes or seki to live.

Yes Gennan you have got the point.
Thank you to Robert for his help to explain the point.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:52 pm

RobertJasiek wrote:These do not distinguish "real world" from arcana.

Your personal opinion is completely irrelevant here.

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:59 pm

Just for fun:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Black to play and live $$ ----------------------------------------- $$ | X X X X X X X X X X a O . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O O . . . . . . | $$ | X X X X X X X X X X X . O . . . . . . | $$ | O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

Nobody knows but it may well happen that a black "stupid" move at "a" (self atari) is the key move to live!
Everybody can see that if white can himself play at "a" then it is far more difficult for black to live after the capture.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:10 pm

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.

Just being back from walking my labrador ...

In addition to my posting above I would like to distinguish the positions in question (provided these are "real" ones), whether their creation can be considered to be realistic or not.

The position that is currently heavily discussed (no "real" one by the way; but let's put this aside for a moment) is unrealistic:

-- The building of White's dead blocks of stones would have stopped much earlier, latest when it was clear that these groups could not get a living shape.
-- Most important -- in the light of existing knowledge that a 11x10 block of stones in a corner is alive -- White would have had a wild bunch of opportunities to stop the completition of that curious 9x9 block of Black stones.

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

However, this position is a good illustrative model for ruleset freaks who want to win a tournament game by their very special knowledge.

During hypothetical play, Black would fight like the devil to bring his 3-3-point invasion stone to life.

Being well aware of this, White -- in the real world -- would capture Black's block of stones.
However, Black would pass like the devil now. And win the game.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:16 pm

gennan wrote:how is it possible that countless players around the world can score their (much more complicated) games with little effort. Are they all doing it wrong?

They do not apply these rules but likely implicitly use some verbal Japanese rules. Their scoring positions may have more strings and regions but would be much less complicated from a POV of practical status assessment than the difficult positions in this thread.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:21 pm

gennan wrote:If even that simple final position requires a complex mathematical proof to correctly determine the winner, how is it possible that countless players around the world can score their (much more complicated) games with little effort. Are they all doing it wrong?

The answer is very simple:

These games are REAL AND REALISTIC.
During these games, both players perform as expected by the fathers of the rulesets. So they all are doing it right.

And the 1 rules beast per 100.000.000 games (if ever noticed) does not reach the surface. It is stopped by an early resignation.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:23 pm

Unrealistic is such a nicer word than unreal:) The positions may be contrieved but so are many problems, such as H120 with its unrealistic hane-seki.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:38 pm

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

Dear Robert,

Google Translate will assist you to search for "tournament" in the Japanese => English translation of the Nihon Kiin 1989 ruleset. You will be unable to find any match, as I stated before.

A game of Go -- according to the Nihon Kiin 1989 Rules -- starts with Black's first move and ends with the confirmation of the result by both players, or with their both loss.
As far as I understand the text, nothing outside this period / issue is regulated by that Rules.

Not even the time-keeping is mentioned.

I am afraid that you will be unable to find many followers who are willing to confirm that a single game of Go is a "tournament".

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:46 pm

RobertJasiek wrote:... such as H120 with its unrealistic hane-seki.

If the starting position of Inoue Dôsetsu Inseki's masterpiece were realistic, every Go AI could solve that problem with ease. And it would be impossible that an amateur could beat the specialised AI starting from a tiny variation of the main line about 100 moves later.

Just as it would be pointless to train every AI on this problem, it would be pointless to take the needs of a few Western rule freaks into account when developing a set of Go rules.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:50 pm

In this context, I have not called a single game a tounament. (I did, however, play in subtournaments comprising one game.)

Applicability to all positions is a necessity. Studying eccentric positions is a joy.

Life In 19x19

No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?

Re: No result game without loop (in japonese rule) ?