Gérard TAILLE wrote:Oops you do not like very much the J89 at least as it is presented do you?
The presentation includes the legal text, a commentary on the legal text, and "examples of confirmation of life and death".
Everything would have been fine, if ALL INTENDED results of the examples could have been derived by applying the legal text and its commentary only. But this is NOT the case.
Quite apparently, the authors of the rules tried to summarize contradicting (!!!) DESIRED results in a uniform system, but unsurprisingly failed.
The authors unnecessarily damaged the overall impression of their ruleset by not strictly following their own rules, when trying to "solve" position that are very, very unlikely to ever appear in a real game.
It is not "unnatural" at all that a given ruleset will trigger a few "beasts", which results seem to contradict "common sense" (probably different beasts for different rulesets). But it should be logical closed in itself.
But J89 is NOT.
It is said "The results in the following examples WOULD be reached through confirmation of life and death."
Not "MUST".
Taking the examples of the rules : you do not want to see unfinished positions,
I doubt that it makes sense to utilise unfinished positions for trying to "prove" the existence of "beasts", as you (and others) did.
Unfinished positions are not bad per se. But they must be interpreted as a helping hand for the user. As a warning that something unexpected will happen after the game stopped, showing that it would be better for one side or the other to play on. But quite apparently, the text was not intended for beginners.
you introduced a quite unexpected loop in case of double ko,
Strict application of the legal text is "unexpected" for you?
Indeed, that loop is not shown in the "solution" sequences of the examples. But quite apparently, the authors took it for granted.
Please compare the comment on "no result", where only the very first move of the loop is shown.
As a matter of course, it would have been better in the pedagogical sense, if the loop sequence had been shown explicitly, until the real repetition of the starting position. But quite apparently, the text was not intended for beginners.
The beginning of this loop is introduced in example 11. But the sequence for the position at the right (both this position and the moves played there are completely independent from the position and the moves played at the left, as you can easily prove by changing the order of moves) is not yet finished!!!
It does not make any sense to pass for a specific ko, if you do not intend to capture just this specific ko thereafter.
You will have to recapture both ko to reach the starting position at the right. Only then you can be sure that none of the large groups there can be captured.
you reject all examples with independant groups,
All these examples lack the hint
"We know very well that some 'experts' will want to fool unexperienced players during status confirmation. Therefore, we will show you here that anything that exists on the board INDEPENDENT of the group under consideration is completely irrelevant for this consideration."
It is the same, if you pass in a sequence of a status confirmation, or if you occupy a random point on the board outside the position in question.
After the result of the status confirmation has been obtained, the sequence(s) used vanish(es) again into thin air.
you do not accept "enable new stone" which is not under the group considered ...
I think that this is a matter of taste. But you should be consistent with its application.
Either you understand this feature as a REBIRTH of (parts of) a group that has already existed on the board before. Then is should be self-evident that you are bound to the previously occupied board points for placing that "new" stone.
Or, otherwise, you will have to accept a "new" stone anywhere inside the area that contains non-independent, non two-eyed-life groups connected to each other.
Note that you introduced yourself the example 16 which is surely an unfinished position.
Examples 16 to 18 include "unfinished" positions of a very special kind.
Under strict application of the legal text, all these positions are seki.
You have three choices now:
Either this seki does not affect the outcome of the game. Then everything is fine for both players.
Or one of both players will ask for a resumption of the game and start a triple-ko sequence before the game stops.
Or one of both players will accept his loss of the game.
Quite apparently, option #2 was an undesirable one.
What is your prefered go rule? An area one?
Territory rules are fine.
I doubt the applicability of that scoring method during actual play.
I do not like the "beasts" that are typical for area rules.
And my memory is not strong enough to remember everything that has been happened during a long game.
) do you think white should add a move in the position above?
it will follow
pass
lifts the ko ban on recapturing