Japonese counting

[Gérard TAILLE]

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.

Let me say that this example 6 has absolutly no interest providing both player have the same understanding of the rule.
If both players know that white will win if the game ends here then black will not pass => the cycle will never stop during normal play => NO RESULT game.

As Jann, surely I am not motivated to discuss in detail on this J89 rule. I prefer by far to discuss J2003, or Cassandra proposal, or my own proposal.

[Cassandra]

Let me say that this example 6 has absolutly no interest providing both player have the same understanding of the rule.
If both players know that white will win if the game ends here then black will not pass => the cycle will never stop during normal play => NO RESULT game.

The latter is true, Gérard.

But be warned:
There are several examples of status confirmation that will never see the end of the game if both players know the status confirmation's result.

You already discussed several of these unter your GT rules

This result may or may not vary according to the rules applied.
If there is a difference, it may or may not affect the real game.


To refuse a discussion of a fraction of such positions is therefore a contradiction in terms.

[Gérard TAILLE]

Let me say that this example 6 has absolutly no interest providing both player have the same understanding of the rule.
If both players know that white will win if the game ends here then black will not pass => the cycle will never stop during normal play => NO RESULT game.

The latter is true, Gérard.

But be warned:
There are several examples of status confirmation that will never see the end of the game if both players know the status confirmation's result.

You already discussed several of these unter your GT rules

This result may or may not vary according to the rules applied.
If there is a difference, it may or may not affect the real game.


To refuse a discussion of a fraction of such positions is therefore a contradiction in terms.

Discussion positions is fine but discussing them with J89 is less motivating

[Cassandra]

Discussion positions is fine but discussing them with J89 is less motivating

In my bookcase there is, among other things, Go Seigen's 10-volume "Go of the 21st Century".

I think, discussing "Go Rules of the 21st Century" will be fine.

[jmeinh]

After a minor modification...

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

... the result is a position that is structurally similar to Life-and-Death Example 4 and identical in terms of possible game outcomes or analysis results. Shouldn't similar considerations apply here as for Gérard's position? By this I mean especially the thought "the big black group acts as a barrier for local-2 consideration" (though I must admit I never fully understood J2003).

The answer to your question in No. By the way in the example 4 as it stands this barrier exists already and you do not need to change the position.
Now I will try to explain why this barrier has no effect in your example (or in example 4 because it is the same).
The barrier is made of black stones => The barrier can have an effect only when looking for the status of black strings of stones. Here is the point : with no barrier, an "apparently" dead group of black stones (like the left small black group in my example) can become an "alive" group because new black alive stones can appear elsewhere on the board. With a barrier it could be different : the "apparently" dead group may stay dead because the new black alive stones are on the other side of the barrier. This happen in my example where the "apparently" left black group stay dead because of the barrier.
In your example all the black groups are all alive. Because there are no "apparently" dead group, the existing barrier has no effect.

Oops I am not sure I have been very clear

Thanks for the explanation, I have only now taken the time to understand it in the context of J2003, or at least try to. Far from a definite understanding of J2003, however, I think I have got the point that matters. And I'm also curious now about Robert's comment on your example.

[Gérard TAILLE]

And I'm also curious now about Robert's comment on your example.

I do not always answer a comment because it could be only a simple comment. If it is a clear question on an exemple OC I try my best to answer the question.
What is this example your are referring to, and what kind of clarification you are waiting for?

[jmeinh]

And I'm also curious now about Robert's comment on your example.

I do not always answer a comment because it could be only a simple comment. If it is a clear question on an exemple OC I try my best to answer the question.
What is this example your are referring to, and what kind of clarification you are waiting for?

I was referring to your position and your question to Robert in
https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 73#p266573
I agree with you that
- the small black group on the right is alive while the left one is dead (according to my certainly still incomplete knowledge of J2003)
- this status of the left black stones (dead stones) is not what we would expect.

[Gérard TAILLE]

And I'm also curious now about Robert's comment on your example.

I do not always answer a comment because it could be only a simple comment. If it is a clear question on an exemple OC I try my best to answer the question.
What is this example your are referring to, and what kind of clarification you are waiting for?

I was referring to your position and your question to Robert in
https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 73#p266573
I agree with you that
- the small black group on the right is alive while the left one is dead (according to my certainly still incomplete knowledge of J2003)
- this status of the left black stones (dead stones) is not what we would expect.

No, I expected the left black stones being in-seki alive because if white tries to capture them then black will get a lot of new permanent-stone on the right. But this position is quite "special" because all these new permanent-stones on the right are outside the local-2 area associated to the left black group. This point is quite unusual when all the position is recognize as a seki.

BTW jmeinh, with this position you can see that J2003 may be considered not quite efficient: the rule tells you to determine the status of all groups in order to conclude if we are or not in a seki. Here the status of the black groups at the left and at the right does not matter. They could be dead or alive but any case all the position is seki.

[jmeinh]

I was referring to your position and your question to Robert in
https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 73#p266573
I agree with you that
- the small black group on the right is alive while the left one is dead (according to my certainly still incomplete knowledge of J2003)
- this status of the left black stones (dead stones) is not what we would expect.

No, I expected the left black stones being in-seki alive because if white tries to capture them then black will get a lot of new permanent-stone on the right. But this position is quite "special" because all these new permanent-stones on the right are outside the local-2 area associated to the left black group. This point is quite unusual when all the position is recognize as a seki.

BTW jmeinh, with this position you can see that J2003 may be considered not quite efficient: the rule tells you to determine the status of all groups in order to conclude if we are or not in a seki. Here the status of the black groups at the left and at the right does not matter. They could be dead or alive but any case all the position is seki.

Yes, I would also expect the left black stones being in-seki. And all the other stones too.
But application of J2003 leads to the result that the left black stones are dead and the left white chain is alive with territory, isn't it?

[Cassandra]

But application of J2003 leads to the result that the left black stones are dead and the left white chain is alive with territory, isn't it?

NO, "territory inside" requires "no dame outside" under J2003.

This is why it does not matter whether the partial groups of a composite seki are "dead" or "alive" by their status assessment.

[jmeinh]

But application of J2003 leads to the result that the left black stones are dead and the left white chain is alive with territory, isn't it?

NO, "territory inside" requires "no dame outside" under J2003.

This is why it does not matter whether the partial groups of a composite seki are "dead" or "alive" by their status assessment.

ah, that is, J2003 leads to strange looking intermediate results for this position, but the score is in line with our expectations.

[Gérard TAILLE]

But application of J2003 leads to the result that the left black stones are dead and the left white chain is alive with territory, isn't it?

NO, "territory inside" requires "no dame outside" under J2003.

This is why it does not matter whether the partial groups of a composite seki are "dead" or "alive" by their status assessment.

ah, that is, J2003 leads to strange looking intermediate results for this position, but the score is in line with our expectations.

Yes that is the point.
In my post https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 70#p266570 this is exactly what I said by
"(only for the status of the strings of stones, not for the result of the game!)."

[Cassandra]

Ah, that is, J2003 leads to strange looking intermediate results for this position, but the score is in line with our expectations.

TERRITORY rules ALWAYS require a TWO-step process to identify territories. This can NEVER be done in only one step, because there is also "live in seki"!

The common practice (e.g. J89, J2003) includes the status assessment for the individual groups as a first step.
As a second step, its results are combined in the sense of "territory can only exist within groups that live independently".

Gérard's proposal might look like a one-pass procedure at first sight, but a deeper look will reveal that it also uses TWO steps.
The first, though not very eye-catching, step is the identification of the "borders". With this miracle tool, Gérard avoids the seki issue, at least explicitely.
In the second step, with the creation of two-eye-formations, a distinction is also made between seki and independently living groups, albeit implicitly. "If you didn't succeed, your chosen formation contained at least one seki." Thus we will probably see an iterative process here from time to time, dependent on the difficulty of the formations, until the proper border has been found.

[Gérard TAILLE]

Ah, that is, J2003 leads to strange looking intermediate results for this position, but the score is in line with our expectations.

TERRITORY rules ALWAYS require a TWO-step process to identify territories. This can NEVER be done in only one step, because there is also "live in seki"!

The common practice (e.g. J89, J2003) includes the status assessment for the individual groups as a first step.
As a second step, its results are combined in the sense of "territory can only exist within groups that live independently".

Gérard's proposal might look like a one-pass procedure at first sight, but a deeper look will reveal that it also uses TWO steps.
The first, though not very eye-catching, step is the identification of the "borders". With this miracle tool, Gérard avoids the seki issue, at least explicitely.
In the second step, with the creation of two-eye-formations, a distinction is also made between seki and independently living groups, albeit implicitly. "If you didn't succeed, your chosen formation contained at least one seki." Thus we will probably see an iterative process here from time to time, dependent on the difficulty of the formations, until the proper border has been found.

Yes Thomas identification of the territories together with its borders is essential in "GT territory rule" but in practice any player had indirectly already identified these territories and borders at least during the end of the yose and during dame play. In practice any (experimented?) player knows perfectly where exactly she will claim for territory because during a very great part of the game , if not all the game, an experimented player look carefully to her potential territory and its (future) border.
For this reason, in practice, this step counts for almost nothing, even with complexe sekis, simply because these situations were already carefully analysed during the normal course of the game.
In my mind that point is even one of the major advantage of the "GT territory rule": the starting point of the confirmation phase, i.e. the identification of potential territories with its border, have already been done during the game and as such is very natural.

In J2003 I see more steps:
1) find uncapturable groups of stones (with hypothetical play)
2) find capturable-1 groups of stones (with hypothetical play)
3) find local-2 area (without hypothetical play)
4) find capturable-2 groups of stones (with hypothetical play)
5) finally all results are combined in the sense of "territory can only exist within groups that live independently"
In addition it appears in J2003 local-3 area and capturable-3 but I do not know what they are for.

[Cassandra]

Yes Thomas identification of the territories together with its borders is essential in "GT territory rule" but in practice any player had indirectly already identified these territories and borders at least during the end of the yose and during dame play. In practice any (experimented?) player knows perfectly where exactly she will claim for territory because during a very great part of the game , if not all the game, an experimented player look carefully to her potential territory and its (future) border.
For this reason, in practice, this step counts for almost nothing, even with complexe sekis, simply because these situations were already carefully analysed during the normal course of the game.
In my mind that point is even one of the major advantage of the "GT territory rule": the starting point of the confirmation phase, i.e. the identification of potential territories with its border, have already been done during the game and as such is very natural.

In J2003 I see more steps:
1) find uncapturable groups of stones (with hypothetical play)
2) find capturable-1 groups of stones (with hypothetical play)
3) find local-2 area (without hypothetical play)
4) find capturable-2 groups of stones (with hypothetical play)
5) finally all results are combined in the sense of "territory can only exist within groups that live independently"
In addition it appears in J2003 local-3 area and capturable-3 but I do not know what they are for.

I think you prefer your rules too much about "was analyzed during the game".

The big advantage of your approach is that it was probably the very first time that it was possible to cast into a framework of rules what actually happens in the mind of the player.

Or do you really assume that players acting in my unfinished "two-eyed alive" world would proceed as follows after the end of "play"?
Let's check for each and every string on the board, whether it fulfills "two-eyed alive" option #1.
Let's check for each and every other string on the board, whether it fulfills "two-eyed alive" option #2.
Let's check for each and every other string on the board, whether it fulfills "two-eyed alive" option #3.
Let's check for each and every other string on the board, whether it fulfills "in-seki alive" option #1.
Let's check for each and every other string on the board, whether it fulfills "in-seki alive" option #2.
Let's combine all the results of the status confirmation for each and every string on the board to identify territory.

For sure they would start taking the opponent's captives off the board. Same procedure as in your ruleset's world, or in any other as far it is a territorial one.