Cassandra wrote:
You simply do not want to understand that J89 were a clearly inconsistent attempt to put Japanese understanding of the game of Go into written form from the very beginning.
Simply because the authors were professionals in the game of Go, but not in writing a set of rules.
You simple to not want to understand that you have misinterpreted the rules. If there are various interpretations and some create inconsistencies while other interpretations provide consistency, it should be obvious which interpretations to accept.
Cassandra wrote:
I could accept any outcome of any L&D Example, if it could be derived by the prodedures given in the legal text of the rules. But the results of several J89's L&D Examples cannot be derived with application of these procedures alone. Therefore, either the procedures in the legal text do not make any sense, or the L&D Examples.
Or maybe you just do not recognize the right way to do it? The proper understanding of the Rules will be consistent with the examples. If you cannot find consistency then there is a problem in your interpretation.
Cassandra wrote:
It would make no sense whining about the unexpected response from the opponent, who would please be very much tied to the effects that had been thought out in private.
But this it what you do so desperately.
These idiomatic errors just confirm to me that the supposed problems in the Japanese Rules are actually misunderstandings.
Cassandra wrote:
Reverse engineering showed what J89's authors really had in mind, but were unable to formulate on paper.
This includes
Points surrounded by the live stones of just one player are called "eye".
(current version) as what was really meant by J89's author's.
Uh.... What? The proper understanding was already
formulated on paper. No reverse engineering is required. Simple reading comprehension would have sufficed. The Japanese Rules already say that points surrounded by one player's live stones are eyes. Apparently some people got confused by the dead stones. As I said above, there seems to have been confusion between 囲む and 交点/ 存在/取り.
Cassandra wrote:
According to J89's legal text, "territory" is "empty points" only.
Empty points that are eyes. But yes, I agree.
Cassandra wrote:
Just because they "are not sitting on territory", they cannot be taken off the board ("out of territory") as they are.
Your interpretation is wrong. First of all, the Japanese Rules are written with kanji and kana and so obviously do not say "out of territory." It's clear enough that some translation (maybe a translation of a translation) is causing the Japanese Rules to be misinterpreted. I asked several times which translation people were looking at but no one cares to respond. If you are translating it yourself then just say so.
In my reading the the Japanese Rules, they do not state that dead stones are taken "out of territory." Instead, I read the rule as stating that the stones which are taken are the dead stones
among (in the company of, amid, between) territory.
My interpretation of Article 10-1 is that the 5 white stones that are dead and among territory may be taken as prisoners. Why would this interpretation not be correct?
Cassandra wrote:
But all this discussion is useless, as you do not seem to understand the core message. Defining "territory" for a stage of the game that is earlier than the finalisation of the L&D assessement (as J89 did completely unnecessary) is nonsense.
Dead stones that are located inside opponent's alive groups that do not possess any dame, can be taken off the board as they are, being added to the alive groups owner's prisoners.
ONLY THEREAFTER, "territory" should be defined as all the empty points that are inside alive groups that do not possess any dame.
That's all, but only if it is done at the RIGHT moment.
First of all, territory is scored according to Article 10-2, which comes after the dead stones are captured as prisoners by Article 10-1, which comes after life and death is confirmed by Article 9. There is no issue in defining territory in Article 8 since territory is used for scoring which happens after L&D are confirmed. So "
'Defining "territory' for a stage of the game that is earlier than the finalisation of the L&D assessement" is not nonsense because counting territory comes after the dead stones are removed.
The Japanese Rules are so simple. Here's how they work. Once the game is stopped after 2 passes, dame are filled and reinforcing moves are played in order to assess the life and death of the stones. Once the players agree on that, eyes that are territory are identified and dead stones next to that territory can be taken as prisoners, thereby uncovering more territory. It's so simple. Once all of the prisoners are taken, they are used to fill the opponent's territory. Only after doing that is territory counted and compared.
Cassandra wrote:
J89
-- defines "territory #1" with regard to "eye points",
-- does NOT define, but assumes in your opinion, "territory #2" for taking dead opponent's stones off the board, and
-- utilises "territory #3" and "territory #4" with regard to the calculation of the final score.
Apparently, the authors tried to complicate the matter as much as possible.
It is not complicated. The idea of competing for territory is given as the premise of the game in Article 1. Because territory is the defining feature of Japanese Go it is no wonder that territory is defined with respect to eyes in Article 8, is used to identify prisoners in article 10-1, and then is finally counted in Article 10-2.
I think it makes sense for territory to be defined before scoring because the distinction between eyes and territory is important when identifying live stones that are seki stones, and in determining that dead stones among eyes cannot be taken as prisoners because they are not among territory.
----------
Back to the original post, it assume that the Japanese Rules have a requirement to prove that stones are dead. I see no such requirement. My reading is that that alive stones are defined and dead stones are just any stone that is not alive. Japanese Go places the burden of Life & Death on proving that stones are alive. Since the premise of the original post is that this burden cannot be met, then the stones under assessment are dead. Much of the discussion here is about whether the seemingly dead stones can be proven to be dead. That is irrelevant in my interpretation of the Japanese Rules.