Japonese counting

[Cassandra]

Ordinary shapes, such as bent-4-in-the-corner and other hidden kos, do not need exceptional rules.

This is true, but certain rumours about "bent-4-in-the-corner is (always) dead" (what is not true) seemed to have brought some confusion into this subject.

Mostly, exceptional rules are relevant only for triple kos and similar rarities.

This is why I suggested tailoring such "exceptional" rules as specific as possible (and e.g. not trying to establish an additional SIMPLE-ko rule for solving a TRIPLE-ko problem, as J89 did).

Exceptional rules for rare exceptional shapes are not needed because one may tolerate the impact of ordinary rules on them.

If I remember correct, this is what I tried to explain to you for decades

((This kind of tolerance might also help when comparing different status confirmation results between different rulesets.))

Mostly (especially Japanese and Korean) professional players want to maintain what they call tradition in the form of specific outcomes of some specific rare exceptional shapes.

This desire is not bad per se.

If they had studied all possible rare exceptional shapes, they would be forced to reflect their related inconsistent tradition, ...

However, if specific RULES are tailored to achieve these wanted results of status confirmation, these must be applied logically closed and without contradiction. J89's specific rules do not meet this condition, as we all know for sure.

Therefore, if the wanted outcomes are too contradictory to be solved by a (ONE!) specific mechanism by the rules, it would be better to keep the rules free of these, and add a "table of exeptional cases" as a supplement to the legal text.

[jann]

if specific RULES are tailored to achieve these wanted results of status confirmation, these must be applied logically closed and without contradiction. J89's specific rules do not meet this condition, as we all know for sure.

Therefore, if the wanted outcomes are too contradictory to be solved by a (ONE!) specific mechanism by the rules, it would be better to keep the rules free of these, and add a "table of exeptional cases" as a supplement to the legal text.

I think you (and many Western rules hobbyists) are on the wrong track here.

It is true that J89 text has many problems and, if applied literally, many flaws. But this is the problem of the text, careless wordings, oversights, etc.

The LOGIC behind the rules, however, is a different thing. There are not many things that just "happen" to be like they are, based on tradition etc. Most things have good reasons, J89 authors just haven't find good formality for them. It is no coincidence that when the text and examples contradict the examples (and contemporary pro practice) take priority.

What you consider "exceptional cases" are not exceptional for their rules logic, only for the (not too successful) textual formalization.

[Cassandra]

Let me discuss the Simplified Japanese Rules.

...

3) Sekis have territory instead of no territory.

"Simplified Territorial Rules" would have been a better title.

"Japanese" and "territory in seki" is a contradiction in terms. Let me explain why (in my personal opinion) ...


In the "Chinese tradition" (i.e. for "area rule", to be clear), the fortifications are valued to the same extent as their contents.
Therefore, it is only locigal that the inner part (if there is such) of a fortification, which finds itself being a compound of a seki, is also taken into account in order to determine the outcome of the game.
=> "Territory" is counted in a seki.


The "Japanese tradition" seems to assess the fortifications as a necessary evil. In a certain sense, they are mandatory, but otherwise take only up space, which could be otherwise utilised much better.
In addition, it seems to be grounded on a principle of "absolute independence".
Therefore -- after Black placed a stone into a White eye-point -- it makes an all-decicive difference, whether WHITE's group can still "breath" because there is another eye point inside WHITE's group, or whether BLACK was so very kind to not occupy all outside liberties of her group (for what reason ever).
=> Territory is NOT counted in a seki.

[Cassandra]

What you consider "exceptional cases" are not exceptional for their rules logic, only for the (not too successful) textual formalization.

In this case, they should not have neither choosen "examples of confirmation of life and death" as the headline of that supplement to the legal text, nor "The results in the following examples would be reached through confirmation of life and death" in that supplement's introduction.

As additional (implicite) rules for status confirmation, which are not listed in the legal text, we have identified up to now

"Enabled" means permament occupation of any board point, which is possible in no other case but after the group under status confirmation has been taken off the board.

"Pass-for-ko bans" must be played in the same order as the respective ko have been captured. Or (/ and) ...
The completition of a double-ko cycle is forbidden.

As I coincidentally found in the current original version of J89 at the Nihon Kiin site, ...

$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . O . X O X O . . . .
$$ | O X X X O X O O . . .
$$ | . X O O O X X O O . .
$$ | X X O O . O X X O , .
$$ | O O O . O X . X O . .
$$ | X X O O X . X X O . .
$$ | . X X O O X X O O . .
$$ | . . X X X O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . O . X O X O . . . .
$$ | O X X X O X O O . . .
$$ | . X O O O X X O O . .
$$ | X X O O . O X X O , .
$$ | O O O . O X . X O . .
$$ | X X O O X . X X O . .
$$ | . X X O O X X O O . .
$$ | . . X X X O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

... this compound of "bent-four" and "double-ko with nested ko shapes for the sandwiched group" is really life-and-death example 18.
As with ALL compounds of "bent-four" and "double-ko", NO additional rule is needed to achieve the intended status (this is what Robert also mentioned in his posting above).

However, you would have to find implicite rule for confirming White's double-ko group below dead, what of cource can be expected to be the intended result.

$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . O O . O . O X O X X . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X X O O O O X O O X X . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X O X X O O X X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , X O X X . X O O X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O X . X O . O X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O X X O . O O X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O O X X O O X X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O O O X X X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . O O . O . O X O X X . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X X O O O O X O O X X . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X O X X O O X X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , X O X X . X O O X . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O X . X O . O X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O X X O . O O X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O O X X O O X X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O O O X X X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]

This is a variation of example 16, having the nested type of double-ko, instead of the simple one combined with a solid eye-point each.

-------------------
EDITED

[RobertJasiek]

"Simplified Territorial Rules" would have been a better title.

No.

Japanese (or Korean) rules have an extra status assessment phase with hypothetical play. Simple territory scoring rules would have ordinary play for status assessment but whether pass fights occur is the problem. (Button go is yet another thing.)

[jann]

"Double-ko loops", i.e. an alternation between a double ko capture and a double pass-for-ko for these ko, are forbidden.

This one is pretty obvious. Just a side effect / oversight of formalization, which - as is - would break way too many things.

"Simplified Territorial Rules" would have been a better title.

No.

Japanese (or Korean) rules have an extra status assessment phase with hypothetical play. Simple territory scoring rules would have ordinary play for status assessment but whether pass fights occur is the problem. (Button go is yet another thing.)

Hypothetical play is necessary for any pure territory scoring rules, actual playout (with pass stones or similar) is partial switch to area scoring.

I also don't see why you call your rules "Japanese", but for a different reason: draw on repetition in triple kos and similar cycles is not ignorable rarity but essential in Asian go.

[Cassandra]

draw on repetition in triple kos and similar cycles is not ignorable rarity but essential in Asian go.

If so, rules (or / and illustrative examples or illustrative examples alone) that were specific for triple-ko and for any of the "similar" cycles should have been created.

I am sure, you will not use pears for baking an apple-pie.

[Cassandra]

"Simplified Territorial Rules" would have been a better title.

No.

Japanese (or Korean) rules have an extra status assessment phase with hypothetical play. Simple territory scoring rules would have ordinary play for status assessment but whether pass fights occur is the problem. (Button go is yet another thing.)

"Simplified" will be a reference to a comparison with the legal text of J89 and / or J2003.
Just because simpler than "simple" cannot be.

Therefore, "simple territory scoring" PLUS "territory in seki" PLUS "status assessment" would be equivalent to "extended simple territorial rules".

[jann]

draw on repetition in triple kos and similar cycles is not ignorable rarity but essential in Asian go.

If so, rules (or / and illustrative examples or illustrative examples alone) that were specific for triple-ko and for any of the "similar" cycles should have been created.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You won't find examples for this among the LD example section (since long cycle games won't reach any end position where LD would be in question), but J89 still contains illustrative examples at commentary on "no result".

Also player awareness. Void games are so widely known, the other day my opponent tried to claim that for a sending-two-returning-one. So players learn about long cycle draws even before they recognize real cycles.

[Cassandra]

"Double-ko loops", i.e. an alternation between a double ko capture and a double pass-for-ko for these ko, are forbidden.

This one is pretty obvious. Just a side effect / oversight of formalization, which - as is - would break way too many things.

Probably you have already noticed that I edited my posting above.

The previous is now (prohibiting triple-ko cycles was an idea to make the ko-ban for simple ko superfluous), re-worded to "The completition of a double-ko cycle is forbidden."

Probably you want to reconsider your demand for such a prohibition.

Getting rid of a cycle means that the terminating move of that cycle has to be forbidden, NOT the initiating one.
I am sure that you will not like the resulting consequences.

Why the terminating move?

Choosing the INITIATING move for that purpose would have the following consequences (among others):
-- Application case "simple-ko": You must not capture into any ko shape.
-- Application case "double-ko": You must not capture into any double-ko shape.

J89 shows several sequences of capturing into a double-ko shape. Thus, getting rid of that cycle cannot be intended.

#####################################

Apparently, the impact of a ban for every single-ko onto a double-ko flew under the radar of the J89 authors. But the features of a double-ko were changed dramatically.

During "play", it is the player who captured the SECOND ko, who has the priviledge of recapturing first.
If he does, the priviledge for the next cycle switches to the other player.
This implies that a double-ko (seen in isolation) during play is a 50:50 issue.
During this cycle, both players played one move each elsewhere.

But during "status confirmation", it is the player who captured the FIRST ko, who has the priviledge of recapturing first.
This implies that a double-ko (seen in isolation) has become a 100:0 issue.
During this cycle, no move is played elsewhere, what makes an endless repetition possible.
If there is NO endless repetition, the double-ko has effectively disappeared.

It is evident now that Robert's one-pass-for-all-ko-bans in J2003 eleminated that difference between "play" and "status confirmation" for the application case "double-ko".

[jann]

I didn't mean any specific prohibition rule, just pointed to the fact - like earlier, with "no infinite resumptions" - that turning double kos into perpetual repetition via the forcing nature of ko passes there is obviously not acceptable in J89 (even if its poor wording/formalization would allow that, which the authors overlooked).

[Cassandra]

I didn't mean any specific prohibition rule, just pointed to the fact - like earlier, with "no infinite resumptions" - that turning double kos into perpetual repetition via the forcing nature of ko passes there is obviously not acceptable in J89 (even if its poor wording/formalization would allow that, which the authors overlooked).

Did you ever notice that endless repetition is badly needed in life-and-death example 6?

Have you already understood what would happen, if the terminating move of a double-ko cycle during status confirmation was prohibited?
Do you want to have an enforced tenuki inserted after the second ko capture into a double-ko, and after the second pass-for-ko as well?

Did you ever want to win a game of Go by claiming
"I won this game. As you know for sure, dear opponent, I intended to win, so the win in mine!"?

I am sorry to say that, but the entire work of J89 lacks professional attitude.
And that cannot be disputed away with "But the authors intended ...".

[jann]

Did you ever notice that endless repetition is badly needed in life-and-death example 6?

I don't know what "badly needed" means. LD ex 6 shows uncapturable W stones and capturable B stones (which forces B to start the loop in the game).

Have you already understood what would happen, if the terminating move of a double-ko cycle during status confirmation was prohibited?
Do you want to have an enforced tenuki inserted after the second ko capture into a double-ko, and after the second pass-for-ko as well?

For the double ko problem you don't want to prohibit the first or last or any specific move in the "cycle", but the infinite repetition power of ko passes. But again, I don't propose any specific fix/hack for an already (IMO) poor rule design. This doesn't mean that a poorly worded ruletext would take precedence over the intended meaning or the actual game as it's played. If so, there wouldn't be triple ko voids in Chinese professional go.

It would be nice to have flawlessly formalized Japanese (and Chinese) rules, but currently there isn't.

[Cassandra]

Did you ever notice that endless repetition is badly needed in life-and-death example 6?

I don't know what "badly needed" means. LD ex 6 shows uncapturable W stones and capturable B stones (which forces B to start the loop in the game).

Endless repetition is mandatory.

White's four stones are alive because even if Black plays A, they survive in the ensuing long life.

As you can easily see, should you open your eyes, endless repetion is mandatory for confirming White's four stones in the corner "alive".

Have you already understood what would happen, if the terminating move of a double-ko cycle during status confirmation was prohibited?
Do you want to have an enforced tenuki inserted after the second ko capture into a double-ko, and after the second pass-for-ko as well?

For the double ko problem you don't want to prohibit the first or last or any specific move in the "cycle", but the infinite repetition power of ko passes.

You haven't already understood, have you?

If you want to prohibit an endless repetition of

capturing into the ko A of the double ko
capturing into the ko B of the double ko (enforced)
ko-pass for the ko B of the double ko
ko-pass for the ko A of the double ko (enforced)
see
see
see
see
see
...

you will have to declare at least one of the moves in the cycle for "taboo".

There are several options for doing so:

==> is taboo
Effect: Capturing into a double-ko is forbidden.

==> is taboo
Effect: White will capture Black's double-ko group. Termination of the endless repetition of the cycle.

==> is taboo
Effect #1: White must tenuki, but might not have any spot on the board available where she could place her stone. If so, it did not make any sense to have played , she could have passed instead. Again, there will be no capturing into a double-ko, despite it would not be explicitely prohibited here.
Effect #2: Black might start another double-ko cycle by playing a ko-pass with . It will follow . A repetition of would be taboo, as it were the first pass-for-ko in that cycle. Black must tenuki, but -- contrary to White -- he will always find a beneficial spot on the board where he can place his stone. White might even surrender in the very beginning, as Black might be able to play TWO moves in a row elsewhere.

==> is taboo
Effect: White will capture Black's double-ko group with her move (not the one defined above) . Termination of the endless repetition of the cycle.

==> is taboo
Effect #1: White must tenuki, but might not have any spot on the board available where she could place her stone. If so, it did not make any sense to play , she could have passed instead. Again, there will be no capturing into a double-ko at all, despite a first capturing would not be explicitely prohibited here.
Effect #2: Black is unable to start another double-ko cycle with reversed colours, as would be the cycles very first move. Same effect as with declaring taboo: Capturing into a double-ko would be forbidden.


As you can easily realise, only and will terminate the double-ko cycle.
is the move that completes the cycle, and prohibiting such move is what I suggested.
Prohibiting would be an alternative option. If you chose this one, you would discover at once that prohibiting a double-ko cycle does not make any sense at all.

[jann]

White's four stones are alive because even if Black plays A, they survive in the ensuing long life.

As you can easily see, should you open your eyes, endless repetion is mandatory for confirming White's four stones in the corner "alive".

The stones are uncapturable, whether B tries the cycle or something else. I don't see your point here.

If you want to prohibit an endless repetition of

capturing into the ko A of the double ko
capturing into the ko B of the double ko (enforced)
ko-pass for the ko B of the double ko
ko-pass for the ko A of the double ko (enforced)
see
see
see
see
see
...

you will have to declare at least one of the moves in the cycle for "taboo".

For the third time, I don't want to try patching up an already poor rule invention, but turning this into something like superko (worrying about which specific move is to be prohibited) is a bad track for sure. The problem is that J89 ko passes do not match the theory behind inventing them, so if anything this is to be addressed.