Japonese counting

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:25 pm

Cassandra wrote: Newest one:

viewtopic.php?p=267108#p267108

There is NO bad wording, but you are led by "unwishful" thinking.
There is NOTHING to be misunderstood but that you want to kid me.

I think that even people with an IQ lower than yours will understand, unlike you:

If the status confirmation result of a specific position in question
after the application of Honte's DOUBLE-ko spell does NOT match
that of J89, J2003, GT, or whatsoever,
it contains FAKE double-ko shapes FOR SURE.

I am not your nanny. You have to track down the very obvious mistakes yourself.

OK we can't agree on everything can we?
You think the application of Honte's DOUBLE-ko spell must not cause problems while I think changing a configuration by another may be OK for some situations but non OK for others. Non agreement is part of life isn't it? I found some other positions which might also cause problems with Honte's DOUBLE-ko spell. I still need some verification but, because for sure they must contain FAKE double-ko shapes, I will keep these positions for myself. I cannot say more on Honte's DOUBLE-ko spell.

BTW, in any case, even if disagreement, be sure I always respect your person Thomas. I always treat you as a person fond of GO as myself and you must not believe I am against you. It is a non sense. I may be against some ideas in the go world but an idea on Go is not a person is it?

Pio2001 · Post by **Pio2001** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:14 pm

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Here is a question on trditional japanese rule relating to unsettled position

$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | C C C X . X . |
$$ | C C C X X X X |
$$ | C C C X . . . |
$$ | X X X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------+
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | C C C X . X . | $$ | C C C X X X X | $$ | C C C X . . . | $$ | X X X X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------+[/go]
Let's consider the nine marked intersections in upper left corner. There is still room for putting a living white group right?
Your are allowed to configure these nine intersections as you want (white stones, black stones and empty intersections) but the result must be the following:
1) If it is black to play the all white stones can be unconditionnally killed
2) It it is white to play white can live unconditionnally

Assume the game stops in this unsettled situation and you use "traditionnal" japanese rule.
1) Can the expected result depends of the specific position chosen?
2) If not, what is for you the expected result?

Thank you for your answer because it is really unclear for me. Black territory? Seki? No result? Both player lose? other?

It doesn't depend on the position of the White stones, but it depends on the rest of the board.
If one of the players who looses the local fight still wins because he has enough point in the rest of the board, he'll ask to resume the game, loose the fight, then win the game.
If both players loose the game if they loose the local fight, then none will ask to resume the game, while a move exists that decides the fate of the group. In this case, both players loose.

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:40 pm

Pio2001 wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:Here is a question on trditional japanese rule relating to unsettled position

$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | C C C X . X . |
$$ | C C C X X X X |
$$ | C C C X . . . |
$$ | X X X X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------+
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | C C C X . X . | $$ | C C C X X X X | $$ | C C C X . . . | $$ | X X X X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------+[/go]
Let's consider the nine marked intersections in upper left corner. There is still room for putting a living white group right?
Your are allowed to configure these nine intersections as you want (white stones, black stones and empty intersections) but the result must be the following:
1) If it is black to play the all white stones can be unconditionnally killed
2) It it is white to play white can live unconditionnally

Assume the game stops in this unsettled situation and you use "traditionnal" japanese rule.
1) Can the expected result depends of the specific position chosen?
2) If not, what is for you the expected result?

Thank you for your answer because it is really unclear for me. Black territory? Seki? No result? Both player lose? other?
It doesn't depend on the position of the White stones, but it depends on the rest of the board.
If one of the players who looses the local fight still wins because he has enough point in the rest of the board, he'll ask to resume the game, loose the fight, then win the game.
If both players loose the game if they loose the local fight, then none will ask to resume the game, while a move exists that decides the fate of the group. In this case, both players loose.

I think you refer to "Commentary on Article 13, Both Players Lose, Clause 1" and Diagram 19.
Yes I said that the game stopped in the position built (that means I assumed two successive passes occured). Yes both player should have avoid to pass, that's true. But I never claim that the players do not agree that the game has ended.
In my problem, because I really assume both players agree the game has ended (neither player want to resume the game because it will allow the opponent to play first) the confirmation phase will begin directly on the position built.

You said "It doesn't depend on the position of the White stones, but it depends on the rest of the board..
I agree with you but because you mentionned only the white stones I am wondering if you took into account that, on the nine points, you are allowed to put also black stones.

Pio2001 · Post by **Pio2001** » Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:12 pm

Gérard TAILLE wrote:In my problem, because I really assume both players agree the game has ended (neither player want to resume the game because it will allow the opponent to play first) the confirmation phase will begin directly on the position built.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
The game ends after the confirmation phase, not before.
The players agree that the game has ended only if they agree about the life and death of all groups.
If they can't agree, they both loose. Right ?

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:06 pm

Pio2001 wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:In my problem, because I really assume both players agree the game has ended (neither player want to resume the game because it will allow the opponent to play first) the confirmation phase will begin directly on the position built.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
The game ends after the confirmation phase, not before.
The players agree that the game has ended only if they agree about the life and death of all groups.
If they can't agree, they both loose. Right ?

Yes my previous post was not very clear. Let'me try to reformulate the problem.
My questions was:
Assume the game stops in this unsettled situation and you use "traditionnal" japanese rule.
1) Can the expected result depends of the specific position chosen?
2) If not, what is for you the expected result?

The first point to note is the wording "TRADITIONAL" japanese rule instead of J89 or whatever you want.
The second point to note is the wording "2) If not, what is FOR YOU the expected result"

I believe (hope?) we all know the result of any position you can built when using J89 or J2003 but, when applying such rules I found some strange results. For that reason I would like to know what could be FOR YOU the expected result, without being influenced by your knowledge of J89 or J2003 rules. In fact I am asking for your feeling in order to know later which rule fit really your feeling as a go player and not as a rule expert.

Pio2001 · Post by **Pio2001** » Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:53 pm

Gérard TAILLE wrote:In fact I am asking for your feeling in order to know later which rule fit really your feeling as a go player and not as a rule expert.

OMG ! My feelings are deeply rooted in the chinese rules: the only thing that counts is if the stone is on the board or outside the board, period.

I have no feeling regarding the japanese rule. I'm completely unable to have any intuitive vision of it.
I know it is something about territory minus prisoners minus stones that can't escape capture but that are awarded without having to capture them...
Moreover, the fact that "escaping capture" is defined allowing to play twice in a row (the first move of the confirmation phase can be made by the same player who played the last move of the game) or even by immediately recapturing in a ko (at the start of the confirmation phase, ko bans are lifted), this is something that completely defies my intuition !

For example, if the game stops after closing territories and filling dame, but there is an open ko, and the last move was to capture in this ko, then for me, there should be one point of territory inside this ko, because it is an empty intersection completely surrounded by living stones of the same player (for me, it is forbidden to immediately recapture in a ko, thus the stone that is in atari should be alive if there is nothing more to play for the opponent).
This is perfectly logical if you consider that in AGA rules, the player who fills that ko plays twice while his opponent passes, thus receives two pass stones. The first stone represents the equivalence between the territory and area count methods in AGA rules, the second represents the point of territory that he should have had inside the open ko.

That's my feelings... you can see that they are one thousand miles away from the japanese rules.

jann · Post by **jann** » Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:35 pm

Pio2001 wrote:or even by immediately recapturing in a ko (at the start of the confirmation phase, ko bans are lifted)

This shouldn't be a surprise considering the last two moves were passes (so the ko recapture is not immediate).

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:23 pm

Gérard TAILLE wrote:BTW, in any case, even if disagreement, be sure I always respect your person Thomas. I always treat you as a person fond of GO as myself and you must not believe I am against you. It is a non sense. I may be against some ideas in the go world but an idea on Go is not a person is it?

Gérard,

Trying to butter me up is completely ineffective. I'm not the extrovert type of person who needs other people's appreciation for their own well-being.

As you can see with Igo Hatsuyôron 120, I am looking for absolute truth. Appreciation and respect for other people's WORK is what counts.
You miss this respect, instead you try to ridicule other people's work results for reasons that I cannot understand.
In this context, I see it as a major weakness on your part that you are not able to differentiate between positions before and after the game has stopped.

Study the positions I have offered you for this purpose. Then maybe you understand, but only maybe.

Let me give you another example.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +-------------------+ $$ | . O X X . O X . . | $$ | X X O X . O X X X | $$ | X X O X O O X . . | $$ | O O O O X X X X X | $$ | . . . O O O O O O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

This position will look familiar to you.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B J89 status confirmation $$ +-------------------+ $$ | . @ # # . @ X . . | $$ | # # O # . @ X X X | $$ | # # O # @ @ X . . | $$ | O O O O X X X X X | $$ | . . . O O O O O O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

J89 sees this position in the corner as a Seki.

But this is ONLY due to an excessive interpretation of "enabled", and to the weakness of utilising the same technical term (i.e. "DAME") for two different pairs of shoes.

Let's put these two weaknesses aside for a moment...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B "Two-eyed alive" status confirmation $$ +-------------------+ $$ | . P B B . P X . . | $$ | # # O B . P X X X | $$ | # # O B P P X . . | $$ | O O O O X X X X X | $$ | . . . O O O O O O | $$ | . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Black's four stones at the left are "in-seki alive", as they can be re-established only partially after having been captured.
White's single stone is "not alive", as it cannot be re-established after having been captured.
Black's four stones are "alive", as they cannot be captured, even if White plays first.
White's four stones to the right are "not alive", as they cannot be re-established even partially after having been captured.
As a concluding result, Black has ten points of territory at the top.

You will remenber for sure that you had this six-points area at the top, that is enclosed by Black stones that can become "two-eye-formation", as "territory" as well in a former version of your GT rules.

If you look at my special full-board example, you should see that the appreciation of this six-point area as "Black territory" is much closer to the truth than "seki".
And indeed, it will become Black territory!!!

This position is "Five points without capturing", but these five points are for BLACK, not for White as with "Three points without capturing".
Therefore, we will NEVER EVER see this position AFTER the game stopped. (Exceptions prove the rule. That would be if the outcome of the game is independent of the territorial valuation of this position. Should this position have ever been created.)

Under J89, it will be BLACK who starts the sequence that ends with White's four stones to the right becoming taken off the board. Just because he would lose points if he allowed this position being turned into a seki by status confirmation.

In the "two-eyed alive" world, it will be WHITE who starts the capturing sequence mentioned above. Just because she would lose points if she allowed this position reaching status confirmation untouched.

Seemingly contradictory results of very different rulesets will lead to the SAME conclusion of the board during "play".

But you, apparently being unable to realise this COMMON CONCLUSION, are continually trying to make other rulesets bad, based on your unsufficient understanding of what a "still unfinished position" is.

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Sat Sep 04, 2021 2:17 am

Pio2001 wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:In fact I am asking for your feeling in order to know later which rule fit really your feeling as a go player and not as a rule expert.
OMG ! My feelings are deeply rooted in the chinese rules: the only thing that counts is if the stone is on the board or outside the board, period.

I have no feeling regarding the japanese rule. I'm completely unable to have any intuitive vision of it.
I know it is something about territory minus prisoners minus stones that can't escape capture but that are awarded without having to capture them...
Moreover, the fact that "escaping capture" is defined allowing to play twice in a row (the first move of the confirmation phase can be made by the same player who played the last move of the game) or even by immediately recapturing in a ko (at the start of the confirmation phase, ko bans are lifted), this is something that completely defies my intuition !

For example, if the game stops after closing territories and filling dame, but there is an open ko, and the last move was to capture in this ko, then for me, there should be one point of territory inside this ko, because it is an empty intersection completely surrounded by living stones of the same player (for me, it is forbidden to immediately recapture in a ko, thus the stone that is in atari should be alive if there is nothing more to play for the opponent).
This is perfectly logical if you consider that in AGA rules, the player who fills that ko plays twice while his opponent passes, thus receives two pass stones. The first stone represents the equivalence between the territory and area count methods in AGA rules, the second represents the point of territory that he should have had inside the open ko.

That's my feelings... you can see that they are one thousand miles away from the japanese rules.

I understand Guillaume, the logic of area rules, even with unfinished positions, is far easier to understand.
Thanks anyway because that way I have be able to clarify a little my questions.
In addition I would like to say that on such unfinished positions it is not really an issue to see the rules given different results. I am just try to understand what could be the logic for counting these positions, under territory oriented rules.

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Wed Sep 08, 2021 2:12 pm

Gérard TAILLE wrote:I can understand that the questions I asked in viewtopic.php?p=267059#p267059 were not that clear.
I can here propose another problem adressing exactly the same issue in the rule.

The problem is a little strange so it is only for those who like strange and unusual problems (maybe Thomas will not like it but other readers may be interested).

$$B Black to play
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . O X . . X O . . |
$$ | X X . . X X O . . |
$$ | O O X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O O O O . . . . |
$$ | O O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Black to play $$ +-------------------+ $$ | . O X . . X O . . | $$ | X X . . X X O . . | $$ | O O X X O O O O O | $$ | . O O O O . . . . | $$ | O O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . | $$ +-------------------+[/go]
The problem is the following : it is black to play and assume that the black move will be the last move of this game (IOW it does not matter if the position will be unsettled, the game will stop after the first black move, and the result of the game will be immediately evaluated using common confirmation phase).
Now is the question : what is for black the WORSE move ? (I mean the move that give the worse result for black).
Take pleasure

After one week it is time to give you the solution of this strange problem.

The WORSE move for black is:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B Black to play $$ +-------------------+ $$ | 1 O X . . X O . . | $$ | X X . . X X O . . | $$ | O O X X O O O O O | $$ | . O O O O . . . . | $$ | O O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . | $$ +-------------------+[/go]

When you apply confirmation phase after this move then all black stones are dead and all the region is white territory.

Assume instead of the

you choose to pass:

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

Now when applying confirmation phase all the black stones are still dead but the marked white stone is also dead by:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B :w2: pass $$ +-------------------+ $$ | 3 W X . . X O . . | $$ | X X . 1 X X O . . | $$ | O O X X O O O O O | $$ | . O O O O . . . . | $$ | O O . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . | $$ +-------------------+[/go]

The result is now an anti seki.

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:49 pm

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +------------------------+ $$ | . O . X . O X . . O . . $$ | X O O O X X O O O O . . $$ | X X X X X O . . . . . . $$ | O O O O O O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

This position is the L&D example 6.
For the time being I studied over all loops involving ko in order to have a better understanding of pass-for-ko or ko-pass and advantageous loop.
I just took a loop at this example 6 showing a loop without any ko. In such position I was convinced that the result should be no doubt a seki but I discovered it is not the case. Looking deeper, the application of J89 (as well as J2003) to this example gives me a seki as result. Could the text given in this example 6 be a translation error?

jann · Post by **jann** » Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:31 pm

What is wrong with the commentary, how do you get seki? Normally B starts the cycle in the game for draw. If left as is, B is dead since W can start and kill with bulky5. W is alive since uncapturable even if B starts. (single W stone alive as well since W can either save it immediately or replace with permanent stone, depending on what B tries)

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:25 pm

jann wrote:What is wrong with the commentary, how do you get seki? Normally B starts the cycle in the game for draw. If left as is, B is dead since W can start and kill with bulky5. W is alive since uncapturable even if B starts. (single W stone alive as well on enable)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +------------------------+ $$ | . O . X . W X . . O . . $$ | X O O O X X O O O O . . $$ | X X X X X O . . . . . . $$ | O O O O O O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Thank you Yann I see where is my mistake. I assumed that in a loop all stones involved in capture are dead but this is not true.

BTW the result is quite uncommon. All the corner is considered white territory but, if black plays first, white is unable to kill black stones. It looks like a teire move is missing but here it is not the case:
I tried to build other example with such strange result.
Here it is with an unfinished position:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +--------------------+ $$ | . . O . . X . . . . $$ | O O O O O X . . . . $$ | X X X X X X . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

white stones are dead => all corner is black territory

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +--------------------+ $$ | X . O . . X . . . . $$ | O O O O O X . . . . $$ | X X X X X X . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

white stones are dead but black stone in the corner is dead => seki

Comparing the two diagrams above I expected a difference of one point at the maximum but here the difference is black territory against seki. It is not easy to understand the justification.

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:45 am

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
jann wrote:What is wrong with the commentary, how do you get seki? Normally B starts the cycle in the game for draw. If left as is, B is dead since W can start and kill with bulky5. W is alive since uncapturable even if B starts. (single W stone alive as well on enable)

$$B
$$ +------------------------+
$$ | . O . X . W X . . O . .
$$ | X O O O X X O O O O . .
$$ | X X X X X O . . . . . .
$$ | O O O O O O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +------------------------+ $$ | . O . X . W X . . O . . $$ | X O O O X X O O O O . . $$ | X X X X X O . . . . . . $$ | O O O O O O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
Thank you Yann I see where is my mistake. I assumed that in a loop all stones involved in capture are dead but this is not true.

BTW the result is quite uncommon. All the corner is considered white territory but, if black plays first, white is unable to kill black stones. It looks like a teire move is missing but here it is not the case:
I tried to build other example with such strange result.
Here it is with an another unfinished position:

$$B
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | . . O . . X . . . .
$$ | O O O O O X . . . .
$$ | X X X X X X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +--------------------+ $$ | . . O . . X . . . . $$ | O O O O O X . . . . $$ | X X X X X X . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
white stones are dead => all corner is black territory

$$B
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | X . O . . X . . . .
$$ | O O O O O X . . . .
$$ | X X X X X X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +--------------------+ $$ | X . O . . X . . . . $$ | O O O O O X . . . . $$ | X X X X X X . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
white stones are dead but black stone in the corner is dead => seki

Comparing the two diagrams above I expected a difference of one point at the maximum but here the difference is black territory against seki. It is not easy to understand the justification.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:50 am

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
$$B
$$ +--------------------+
$$ | X . O . . X . . . .
$$ | O O O O O X . . . .
$$ | X X X X X X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +--------------------+ $$ | X . O . . X . . . . $$ | O O O O O X . . . . $$ | X X X X X X . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
white stones are dead but black stone in the corner is dead => seki

Comparing the two diagrams above I expected a difference of one point at the maximum but here the difference is black territory against seki. It is not easy to understand the justification.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +--------------------+ $$ | a . O . 1 X . . . . $$ | O O O O O X . . . . $$ | X X X X X X . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Black should have atttacked with

from the outside, instead of at A from the inside.

Life In 19x19

Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting

Re: Japonese counting