GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:37 am

John Fairbairn wrote:This is not to say that Japanese cannot be exact. But if they want to be so with terms, they will go beyond just putting the term in brackets (e.g. 「地」). The language round about will change. There will be lots of とは and lots of する (= 'shall' in the legal sense), for example. But go rules are not international treaties, and so in Japanese culture are not treated as such.

I am very well aware of this.

However, one of the explicitly (!) declared aims for establishing J89 (according to my interpretation of J89's introduction "序") was to support the internationalisation of the game of Go.

But the authors have not managed to create (/ concentrated on creating) a text that unambiguously reflected what was meant in Japan for a Western understanding, and that equally remained (just) clearly understandable for the Japanese audience. They wrote a text for the Japanese audience, hoping that Western interpreting would clearly result in what was originally meant.

jann · Post by **jann** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:44 am

John Fairbairn wrote:Cassandra: You have clarified your intentions (though not J1989's still misunderstood intentions), and it seems now there is a simple fix. Just change your title: to "German interpretation of J1989's contents".

I have asked this in the past: whenever an inventor presents his rule inventions, please make it clear it is a new invention and not something else. Not doing so will just lead to misunderstandings, and will leave a bad taste after it is cleared - regardless of the merits or flaws of the invention in question.

In this case, the text includes the "no ko recapture until all kos have been passed for", and the "enabled stones must be played after the original capture" rules. Both have been discussed in the past, and neither seems to work. The latter does not meet example #4 commentary, and outright fails in example #5 if the right side of the seki have more layers.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:28 am

jann wrote:The latter does not meet ... commentary ...

Don't believe everything that is written in the sections "Commentary" and "L&D Examples", as there were and are several OBVIOUS mistakes included. I think that I already mentioned this several times before, didn't I?

Additionally, the section "L&D Examples" includes several moves that are completely unnecessary for assessing the L&D status of the group in question. As compensation, the move sequences for assessing much more complicated cases are withheld. Really without any reason?

Apart from that the following also applies to you

Cassandra wrote:Before you (or anyone else) use "wrong", "mistake", or whatsoever with a similar meaning:
Check beforehand to what extent the application of the disputed text gives a result that does not correspond to the intended result in J89.
I do not intend to transfer Japanese frameworks to Germany. I just want to make sure that the application of a German rule text by Germans leads to the same results as the application of a Japanese rule text by Japanese. It should be clear from the outset that the two texts cannot be congruent.

Just concentrate on the intended L&D status of the groups in question. Can it be reached or not by applying the procedures given?

jann · Post by **jann** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:58 am

Cassandra wrote:Just concentrate on the intended L&D status of the groups in question. Can it be reached or not by applying the procedures given?

jann wrote:neither seems to work. The latter ... outright fails in example #5 if the right side of the seki have more layers.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:12 am

jann wrote:neither seems to work. The latter ... outright fails in example #5 if the right side of the seki have more layers.

What is the intended result GIVEN BY / INCLUDED IN J89?

Quite apparently, such a multi-layer-seki example was not deemed worthy of inclusion in J89's L&D collection. Most likely because it was considered to be of far greater practical importance than the least likely of the existing examples, right?

jann · Post by **jann** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:38 am

Cassandra wrote:
jann wrote:fails in example #5 if the right side of the seki have more layers.
What is the intended result GIVEN BY / INCLUDED IN J89?

This is why emojis were invented: deadpan jokes work less in writing.

If you only care about the included examples in vanilla and don't mind failing anywhere else (even in the same examples after slight complication), why bother with the disguise of logical rules at all? Just include 25 precedents and done.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:48 am

jann wrote:Just include 25 precedents and done.

This is what I suggested much earlier. Especially for those who have not managed to put a non-contradictory framework over these cases.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:28 am

RobertJasiek wrote:How / with which principles have you derived / created the German version?

Continued.

Approach #2: Retention of the internal structure as far as possible. Addition of clarifying notes where necessary or appropriate.

J89's handling of "move" (i.e. Articles 3 to 6) follows a PASSIVE approach:

(( Text in italics = exaggerated / striking ))

Article 3 teaches us that stacking stones is not an activity within the game of Go.
Otherwise, everything is permitted that does not result in the suffocation of one's own stones.
Article 4 explains what is essential to prevent the suffocation of stones.
And, not very surprisingly, realises that choked stones have no place on the board.
Article 5 announces the result of empirical studies according to which stones run out of air the sooner the longer they have been on the board.

Article 6 prevents the endless repetition of the same two moves over and over again.

Letting

aside, a more ACTIVE approach would be imaginable:

Everything is permitted that does not contradict

or

.
If a player's move smothers opposing stones, they are taken off the board as prisoners.
It is forbidden to smother one's own stones. This does not apply for .

Ko rule as

above.

----------

You will easily realise that Article 3 does NOT include any reference to the second kind of "taboo-points" (i.e. empty point in a ko-shape immediately after capture). This is one of J89's OBVIOUS mistakes.
I have added a corresponding supplement.

Article 4 states that a special kind of stones cannot "exist" on the board. Accepted, but what will we do when such stone has been placed on the board?
I have added a corresponding supplement that EXPLICITLY repeats what can be implicitly concluded from the combination of Articles 3 and 4.

The supplement to Article 5 is due to the ambiguity of "to capture" in English.
As a matter of course, "capturing" has the same meaning in J89 as it has e.g. in the game of Chess (e.g. "The white queen captured a black rook."): "taking something off the board".
However, "capturing" during ACTIVE PLAY also has the meaning of "fencing opponent's stones in, so that they can neither escape nor achieve a living shape".

----------

To be continued ... (simply follow the link)

CDavis7M · Post by **CDavis7M** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:02 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:Now, what about contexts where both 目 and 眼 come up together. Meari menashi 眼あり眼なし is one example. 目 does not come up in the phrase, but in the position there will also be liberties, or dame 駄目. If you mix up your two me's you'll never learn how to win a semeai (semi-eye, geddit!!?).

アルユータキントウめ?

John Fairbairn wrote:If you say contemptuously that a player has been reduced to a mere two eyes after a bout of bullying (ijime) you say (with optional sneer) he has 'me futatsu'.

Then, better to say "me o futatsu kudasai" first?

John Fairbairn wrote:the Nihon Ki-in dictionary of technical terms, which you would take to be a repository of definitions, "defines" 地 simply as "地所.実利."

Does that beat the definition of 本筋 being 本物の筋 (found after reading your post about Honte).

--------------------

To be fair to the original poster, I searched the jiten under "き" and discovered that in fact, the Nihon Kiin does not define rules.

CDavis7M · Post by **CDavis7M** » Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:07 pm

Cassandra wrote:Just concentrate on the intended L&D status of the groups in question. Can it be reached or not by applying the procedures given?

Article 7-2 is a (潜在的) rationale for the definitions. It's definitely not a procedure. But yes, all of the L&D examples can be understood from the rules, commentary, and other examples. Glad to clear this stoppage.

There's only one statement in the Japanese Rules that might be deemed a failure -- the part about 欧米囲碁愛好家.

Also, don't forget to translate this part:

新ルールは、日本の囲碁の特色である感性の豊かさをいささかも損なうことなく、合理性の追求と個別、例外規定を排した普遍的かつ簡素な条文から成る品位の高い規約であると自負している。また、一般囲碁愛好家にとってもルールの理解が容易であり、従来ともすれば生じたトラブルの余地も解消し、今まで通りの手法で囲碁を楽しむことができるものと信じる次第である。

いずれにせよ、永い歴史と伝統を有する日本の囲碁が、今回の改定でその合理性が確立された事は囲碁ファンの一人として誠に喜ばしい限りであるが、知能的競技として芸術的価値の極めて高い文化資産を、世界に又未来永劫に伝える為、このルールと共に、礼儀、品位が遵守され、良識と相互信頼の元に対局するという日本囲碁の精神が広く囲碁界に普及されることを切望してやまない。

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:05 am

RobertJasiek wrote:How / with which principles have you derived / created the German version?

Continued.

Approach #3: Topology of "useless points".

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

This is J89's L&D Example 24, which comment explains the effect of "useless points" on the determination of "territory", using a two-stage ko as an examplary case.
We will limit ourselves here on "useless points", and therefore neither discuss L&D, nor "territory", nor two-step ko.

There are three different types of "useless points":

"Two-sided boundary points"

"One-sided boundary points"

"Unplayable useless points"

Please note that these three types can NOT be handled DIFFERENTLY in J89, as the same technical term is used to identify them.
I refrained from adjusting the interpretations, so as not to make things too confusing.

----------

"Two-sided boundary points"

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

The "useless point"

is RIGHT NEXT to the marked stones

of both sides, which are "independently alive".

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

J89 mentiones something like '"useless points" next to them "ALONG THE LINES OF THE BOARD"'. What does "along the lines of the board" mean?
The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from Black's point of view.

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

You can also utilise an iterative method for identifying worthless regions on the board, here displayed for such a Black region:

Mark the solidly connected Black stones that are RIGHT NEXT to

(with

here).

Mark the (previously unmarked) empty board points RIGHT NEXT to

with

.

Mark the solidly connected Black stones, as well as the previously unmarked empty points, that are RIGHT NEXT to

(=

from

).

If no stones / empty points were marked, then stop, else continue with

.

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

This "useless point" situated at the boundary between "independently alive" stones of both players can be filled by either player.
Thus, this type of "useless point" will be called "two-sided boundary point" hereafter.

Please note that -- in principle -- IMPLICITLY enforcing the occupation of "two-sided boundary points" (as is done in J89) is nothing more than a means to make the scoring less prone to error. "Two-sided boundary points" have nothing to do with "territory"!

----------

"One-sided boundary points"

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

The "useless point"

is RIGHT NEXT to the marked White stone, which is a "death stone".

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point". As a matter of course, it's a White region only.

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

The iterative method again.

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

This "useless point" can be filled by only one player (White here). The two-stage ko makes another White move necessary, but this issue will not be discussed here.
Thus, this type of "useless point" will be called "one-sided boundary point" hereafter.

Please note that -- in principle -- IMPLICITLY enforcing the occupation of "one-sided boundary points" (as is done in J89) is nothing more than a means to make the scoring less prone to error. "One-sided boundary points" have nothing to do with "territory"!

----------

"Unplayable useless points"

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

This is a position being part of Diagram 6 of J89's Commentary.

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

There are two "useless points"

, which both are RIGHT NEXT to White's "life-stones"

and to Black's "life-stones"

.

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless points" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless points" from Black's point of view.

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

Neither side will play at any of the marked points.
Thus, this type of "useless point" will be called "unplayable useless point" hereafter.

Please note that the determination of "terriory" is ONLY affected by these "unplayable useless points".

----------

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

This position is displayed in Diagram 13 of J89's Commentary (original version).

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

The "useless point"

is RIGHT NEXT to White's "life-stones"

, as well as to Black's "life-stones"

.

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from Black's point of view.

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

Neither side will play at the marked point, which therefore is an "unplayable useless point".

The determination of "territory" is affected by this "unplayable useless point".

----------

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

This diagram shows J89's Commentary's Diagram 14 / J89's L&D Example 25, with colours reversed.

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

The "useless point"

at the upper edge is RIGHT NEXT to White's "life-stones"

, as well as to White's "dead" (according to J89) stone

.
The "useless point"

at the left edge is RIGHT NEXT to Black's "life-stones"

, as well as to Black's "dead" (according to J89) stone

.

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from Black's point of view.

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

Neither side will play at any of the marked "useless points", which therefore are "unplayable useless points".

The determination of "terriory" is affected by these "unplayable useless points".

----------

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

This is J89's L&D Example 2.

I have modified it slightly so as not to distract from the actual topic.

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

The "useless point"

is RIGHT NEXT to White's "seki-stones"

, as well as to Black's "life-stones"

.

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

The diagram above shows the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from White's point of view.

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

This diagram displays the region doomed worthless by the marked "useless point" from Black's point of view.

- - - - -

The iterative method should be clear now, so let us discuss the board's topology a bit further, instead.

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

As a matter of course, Black stones cannot surround Black stones, as "Black stone" is the material the fences are made of.
Black's marked stones simply disappear in Black's topological view on the board.

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

Neither can Black stones effectively surround "alive" White stones.
White's marked stones simply disappear in Black's topoligical view on the baord, as well as everything these stones surround.

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

This diagram shows Black's resulting topological view on the board.

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

This is the comparable topological White view.

You will easily realise that the empty point that exists in BOTH topological views is the "useless point".

- - - - -

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

Neither side will play at the marked point, which therefore is an "unplayable useless point".

The determination of "territory" is affected by this "unplayable useless point".

----------

To be continued ... (simply follow the link)

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:39 am

J89 mentiones something like '"useless points" next to them "ALONG THE LINES OF THE BOARD"'. What does "along the lines of the board" mean?

There is no "along" (i.e. a nuance of extending) in the Japanese. It says その路上に隣接して = adjacent ON its pathways. 路 means pathway (= michi) not line, and the pathway can be as short or as long as you like. Pathway is not an ideal word, of course. Davies correctly rendered it (Article 4) via 'horizontally or vertically adjacent'. 路 is not an ideal word in Japanese either, and Yasunaga Hajime tried to solve the problem (i.e. the need to exclude diagonally adjacent points) in his Rules Constitution by using the term 活路:　一子の活路とは其の点より沿うての四つの隣点. Nobody followed his lead, no doubt because katsuro is used in go as a non-technical word to mean 'means of escape', but we can at least see that he meant one adjacent point in each of four directions, i.e. the shortest possible paths.

Incidentally, I don't like "useless points". They can be useful if they are liberties. I think you can solve most of your problems if you just accept that all Japanese go players strong enough to make sense of the rules clearly distinguish two separate meanings of dame (neutral points and liberties) in just the same way that we easily distinguish 'point' to mean either an intersection or a point of territory (or a poke in the EYE!). And there are not three types of "useless" points, because one of them is covered by prohibited moves (a different term in both Japanese and English).

But there are three types of procedures: translations, interpretations and re-writes. It looks to me as if we are moving into re-write TERRITORY!

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:07 am

John Fairbairn wrote:
J89 mentiones something like '"useless points" next to them "ALONG THE LINES OF THE BOARD"'. What does "along the lines of the board" mean?
There is no "along" (i.e. a nuance of extending) in the Japanese. It says その路上に隣接して = adjacent ON its pathways. 路 means pathway (= michi) not line, and the pathway can be as short or as long as you like. Pathway is not an ideal word, of course. Davies correctly rendered it (Article 4) via 'horizontally or vertically adjacent'. 路 is not an ideal word in Japanese either, and Yasunaga Hajime tried to solve the problem (i.e. the need to exclude diagonally adjacent points) in his Rules Constitution by using the term 活路:　一子の活路とは其の点より沿うての四つの隣点. Nobody followed his lead, no doubt because katsuro is used in go as a non-technical word to mean 'means of escape', but we can at least see that he meant one adjacent point in each of four directions, i.e. the shortest possible paths.

Thank you very much for the English translation.

John Fairbairn wrote:Incidentally, I don't like "useless points". They can be useful if they are liberties. I think you can solve most of your problems if you just accept that all Japanese go players strong enough to make sense of the rules clearly distinguish two separate meanings of dame (neutral points and liberties) in just the same way that we easily distinguish 'point' to mean either an intersection or a point of territory (or a poke in the EYE!). And there are not three types of "useless" points, because one of them is covered by prohibited moves (a different term in both Japanese and English).

Apparently, you are still fine with utilising ambiguous technical terms in rule texts.

Just imagine if there were a punishable ban on eating apples in public in Germany.
Usually, Japanese tourists (quite fond of pears) have to pay the € 100 fine that is due for violating this ban.
Police officer: "Oh, you didn't know that everyone in Germany knows that "林檎" also means "梨"? Nevertheless, ignorance does not protect from punishment."

John Fairbairn wrote:It looks to me as if we are moving into re-write TERRITORY!

Oh, you can be very sure that a game's result will not be affected.

BTW, which of the various meanings of "地" do you have in mind?

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:19 am

John Fairbairn wrote:Incidentally, I don't like "useless points". ... And there are not three types of "useless" points, because one of them is covered by prohibited moves (a different term in both Japanese and English).

What are you complaining about so vehemently?

About the fact that I split a Japanese technical term, which you say has four different Go-typical meanings

in Japan, into seven parts

?

I could understand your complaints if it were the other way around. In other words, subcomponents of the original would have been lost when

and

were combined to form

and

were combined to form

. But that is really not the case, quite the opposite.

Everything is open source. There are no hidden subroutines.
Everyone, who likes to do so, can tailor everything according to their own needs.
And I think that my explanations are extensive and detailed enough to enable a realistic assessment of the effects and consequences of their own tailor-made suit, for the production of which

and

were combined to form

and

to form

.

I regret to say that. But you had your chance, but unfortunately you let it go to waste.

kvasir · Post by **kvasir** » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:43 am

The discussion appears to have moved away from the translation of the text to its formal semantics, that is an interpretation of its logical consequences. These are two separate subjects (not without a connection). It doesn't make much sense to call it a disagreement if person J. said something about translations and person C. said something about semantics, it is apples and oranges. You can argue over apples, you could argue about oranges, but arguing apples and oranges is never fruitful.

Life In 19x19

GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents

Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents

Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents

Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents

Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents

Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents

Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents