J89's pass-for-ko: Misinterpreted in the Western Go World?

[jann]

Article 8 does not "speak of filling in dame as an optional act." Instead, that section just states that it is necessary to fill the dame to make the stones have territory. While this statement alone does not say anything about whether filling dame is an option

It does, and there are even shown examples about this, the text and commentary is reasonably clear here. Dame fill is not mandatory (by rule/law), it is only used for making eyes into territory. Also, informal (after stop) dame fill is only an option that requires consent of both (stated explicitly in commentary 9/2). Thus a player can even refuse it and demand dame to be filled in actual game (or resumption), with actual moves and with actual consequences.

Mandatory fill would not even be possible theoretically, since the rules define seki as live stones that possess (leftover!) dame. It has no other way to recognize seki, thus has no other way to distinguish seki-dame and fillable-dame - only the players' decisions about what they want to fill.

(Filling after seki detection, as you wrote, is just another way of saying dame fill is not mandatory, since filling later is meaningless, without consequence - and as mentioned above, is optional and can even be denied if a player disagrees.)

[CDavis7M]

When you say "There is no possibility of stones being captured by the placement of stones after the game is stopped", do you mean...

After the game has stopped, while it is stopped, stones cannot be captured by being surrounded. Prisoners are only taken from territory after agreement of life and death status. Placing dame and teire will not capture a stone.

For example, would the following lone black stone in the diagram be ok to be captured and removed off the board in this informal phase as part of teire playing and dame filling in that region? I would assume so... as there is no fundamental difference really between playing other "non capturing" teire informally after the game, and playing this capture.

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

The Rules show examples where teire is not needed because it does not change life and death status, and situations where teire is needed to get the desired status. There are the examples of seki, and examples where points are different if the positions were played. Example 24 shows a position where the White stones are still seki even when dame between White and Black are played, because the internal dame still makes the stones seki. White needs to play it out during the game. I think your example is similar. Here, the 1 Black stone is dead, but it is next to dame, not territory, so it cannot be taken off the board. Instead, White will need to capture during the game. This is what the example says.

This goes against tradition, just like "three points without taking", so the explanation says to make the play during the game.

By the way, I believe that teire is used even for placements inside the opponent's stones.

[CDavis7M]

It does, and there are even shown examples about this, the text and commentary is reasonably clear here. Dame fill is not mandatory (by rule/law), it is only used for making eyes into territory. Also, informal (after stop) dame fill is only an option that requires consent of both (stated explicitly in commentary 9/2).

First, my position is that dame filling is mandatory to confirm life and death. Of course, seki can still have the dame that defines their status.

Also, can you quote the rules? Or point to an example? Because Article 9-2 says that dame and teire are required to be played.

Thus a player can even refuse it and demand dame to be filled in actual game (or resumption), with actual moves and with actual consequences.

Nope. They are free to resume the game and play Dame themselves. But again, the rules do not allow the player to make any such demand and there is no requirement for the demand to be met.

Mandatory fill would not even be possible theoretically, since the rules define seki as live stones that possess (leftover!) dame. It has no other way to recognize seki, thus has no other way to distinguish seki-dame and fillable-dame - only the players' decisions about what they want to fill.

Yes. Dame is what defines the seki status. Dame filling is mandatory to confirm seki status, not mandatory after confirming status.

(Filling after seki detection, as you wrote, is just another way of saying dame fill is not mandatory, since filling later is meaningless, without consequence - and as mentioned above, is optional and can even be denied if a player disagrees.)

I'm just stating what the Rules say. Dame filling is not meaningless because it is useful for scoring. Also, I'll just go quote myself in case you want to read it, or not.

Dame fill itself cannot be mandatory since it could be suicidal in sekis, and even with normal dame there are cases where the color of the stone filling it could affect the outcome. So dame fill can only be based on the players' decisions - and dame that neither side wants to fill signals seki.

The rules are clear that filling dame is a requirement to confirm life and death. It's not optional.

[santo]

I might be misunderstanding both of you, but I think it boils down to this (and please correct me if I am misrepresenting each position):

- CDavis7M says that the rules say: "filling dame (implicitly meaning not "seki-dame" but "true-dame", all of those that you would fill in Chinese rules, where they give you points) is mandatory. Once you do that, seki is defined as those groups still having neutral points, that could not be filled in the previous mandatory step.". This of course leaves up to the referee what the definition of "those true dames that will be filled" are, appealing to the referees experience and common understanding of the game. Such understanding would be necessary in case that there is a misbehaving player refusing to fill for example his one-sided-dame (trying to claim pseudoseki), which are part of the "real dame" that must be filled (the fact that those would be filled in a complete match under Chinese rules is a good indicator, but of course, this is far from formal). Thus, the rules would not allow pseudosekis.

- jann says that pseudosekis are part of the rules and are judged as seki, fair and square: cant fill it during the main game = seki, sorry. The game goes to scoring and there is no rule that absolutely forces you or the referee or anybody to fill all these (say, Chinese) dame before life and death.

Is there any actual ruling of a pseudoseki situation (one way or the other)?

[jann]

Thus a player can even refuse it and demand dame to be filled in actual game (or resumption), with actual moves and with actual consequences.

Nope. They are free to resume the game and play Dame themselves. But again, the rules do not allow the player to make any such demand and there is no requirement for the demand to be met.

The commentary on 9/2/2 clearly says:

"If the players agree, they may fill the dame and add other necessary stones after stopping the game, in which case these are not moves as defined by the rules, and need not be played according to the rules."

So if a player does not agree, he can refuse the option of adding stones after stop, and demand that only actual game moves are played. And dame in actual game is obviously up to the players' decision, which to play and which not.

[santo]

Thus a player can even refuse it and demand dame to be filled in actual game (or resumption), with actual moves and with actual consequences.

Nope. They are free to resume the game and play Dame themselves. But again, the rules do not allow the player to make any such demand and there is no requirement for the demand to be met.

The commentary on 9/2/2 clearly says:

"If the players agree, they may fill the dame and add other necessary stones after stopping the game, in which case these are not moves as defined by the rules, and need not be played according to the rules."

So if a player does not agree, he can refuse the option of adding stones after stop, and demand that only actual game moves are played. And dame in actual game is obviously up to the players' decision, which to be played and which not.

Well the previous rule says that it is mandatory to fill those. Then that rule says that, if both players agree, those mandatory moves can be made after game stop. But the wording does not say that they are no longer mandatory. The fact that "And dame in actual game is obviously up to the players' decision" is not such 100% clear to me because for example, I am pretty sure that in a few disputes (there was one in Korea a few years ago in a female tournament) about whether a ko must be filled or not when there is excess threats, when the players end the game, the referee does not go "oh, I will score this final position. Oh you did not defend this, now the stone is dead, so now all this huge region is seki because you left the ko open". The referee goes "oh, this is a ko that should be defended. This move is mandatory so I will add the defense move. Now we score.". In that sense the referee is "forcing" the players to make a move.

[santo]

This referee behaviour might have changed after 1989... but I doubt it, my understanding always was that the rules were basically meant to "explain" and "give logic" to the existing practices, and most players and referees (I think referees are usually also other players?) did not significantly change anything about their behaviour. For historical disputes like the go seigen "defend last ko" disputes, indeed there seems to be not a single well defined "final position", but depending on what the referee decides, the defending move was added or not to the game, to there was more like a "final situation".

[CDavis7M]

I think that represents my opinion.

１ 「駄目詰め」、「手入れ」は必要着手
石の死活及び地を確認するためには、第八条により終局までに「駄目詰め」及び「手入れ」を行わなければならない。

Damezume 駄目詰め are required moves. This is explicitly not defined but in context it's clear that dame between living groups is played while dame surrounded by one side's living seki stones do not need to be filed.

Pseudoseki is not a thing in the Japanese rules. The stones are alive and the outside dame are played, making the eyes become territory.

２　対局停止後での「駄目詰め」、「手入れ」は規定外
「駄目詰め」及び「手入れ」を、対局者の合意により、対局停止後適宜に行う場合は、それらは規定上の着手に該当しない。

Damezume can happen and they can't be used against the player because damezume are not actual moves in the game. If a player wants to resume, the resume the actual game without damezume.

[CDavis7M]

The commentary on 9/2/2 clearly says:

"If the players agree, they may fill the dame and add other necessary stones after stopping the game, in which case these are not moves as defined by the rules, and need not be played according to the rules."

No it does not. But I discovered your problem. You're reading some guy's English translation of the Japanese rules which state that. The actual Japanese Rules do NOT require the players to agree to play dame, just agree that the dame are played correctly.

So much misunderstanding caused by that translation...

[jann]

Well the previous rule says that it is mandatory to fill those. Then that rule says that, if both players agree, those mandatory moves can be made after game stop. But the wording does not say that they are no longer mandatory.

Mandatory (by rule/law) <> required or necessary (in order to achieve something, like turning eyes into territory). The above quote shows that adding non-game moves is optional (naturally, and needs consent), so the only question can be actual game moves. (And please stop relying on Google translate over Davies.)

The commentary on 8/4 shows an example where the dame is not yet played, and explains that the groups are currently in-seki and has no territory because of this. It does not say that this is an invalid state (in fact it says the opposite), or the dame move would be rulewise obligatory (for which player and when anyway?) - it says that playing it is needed in order to make eyes into territory.

[CDavis7M]

The commentary on 8/4 shows an example where the dame is not yet played, and explains that the groups are currently in-seki and has no territory because of this. It does not say that this is an invalid state (in fact it says the opposite), or the dame move would be rulewise obligatory (for which player and when anyway?) - it says that playing it is needed in order to make eyes into territory.

Maybe if you didn't rely on Davies translation (or on your translation of Davies translation?), you'd see that there is no section "8/4" in the Japanese Rules. Perhaps you area talking about section 3 of Article 8?

But before discussing that, let's go back to reading comprehension. Writing is meant to be read in order. The previous statements provide the context for later statements. The later statements must be understand in view of the earlier statements. And of course earlier statements cannot be understand with respect to later statements because they have not yet been read (unless the writing says to read them out of order).

Section 8 is describing what is territory and what is not territory. At this point, Stopping the game (9-1) and life and death confirmation (9-2) have not been described. Required dame filling is part of Article 9, not Article 9. Since Article 8 is not describing Life and Death confirmation then it has nothing to do with dame filling. Of course it is not required to fill dame during the game. Of course this is not an invalid state -- life and death confirmation is not taking place.


This example in section 3 of Article 8 is merely contrasting the previous examples of territory. And it specifically tells the player to play the dame point to make territory.

--------

Your interpretation of Article 9-2 ignores the conflict with Section 9-1 and pretends that some example from a completely different and earlier Article (8-3) rules how this Article works? Perfect logic.

[jann]

The commentary on 8/4 shows an example where the dame is not yet played, and explains that the groups are currently in-seki and has no territory because of this. It does not say that this is an invalid state (in fact it says the opposite), or the dame move would be rulewise obligatory (for which player and when anyway?) - it says that playing it is needed in order to make eyes into territory.

Maybe if you didn't rely on Davies translation (or on your translation of Davies translation?), you'd see that there is no section "8/4" in the Japanese Rules.

I cannot help you until you actually read the English text (which does have a section 4 of commentary on 8).

Of course it is not required to fill dame during the game.

Adding stones after-game is clearly stated to be an exceptional/optional case on consent ("if the players agree ... in which case"), so in-game is the only chance to imagine "mandatory" moves. But the mentioned example phrases clearly - playing dame is only required in order to make eyes territory, otherwise - this is exactly what is considered - the groups remain in seki. There is no conflict with commentary on 9, which only "requires" in the "necessary" sense, for the play of teire, necessary defensive moves, or dame moves needed to make eyes territory (either in-game, or - optionally as stated in the next paragraph - after-stop).

[CDavis7M]

Adding stones after-game is clearly stated to be an exceptional/optional case on consent ("if the players agree ... in which case"), so in-game is the only chance to imagine "mandatory" moves.

This statement is wrong. The English translation is misleading. It's not that the players must agree to fill dame but that they must agree that the dame filling is proper.

Recognize that the sections in the rules with explanations contain both the rule and the explanation to that very same rule. And then the explanations themselves contain a main statements and additional clarifications of the explanation.

Code: Select all

第九条－２
対局の停止後、双方が石の死活及び地を確認し、合意することにより対局は終了する。これを「終局」という。
＜解説＞
    １ 「駄目詰め」、「手入れ」は必要着手
            石の死活及び地を確認するためには、第八条により終局までに「駄目詰め」及び「手入れ」を行わなければならない。
    ２　対局停止後での「駄目詰め」、「手入れ」は規定外
           「駄目詰め」及び「手入れ」を、対局者の合意により、対局停止後適宜に行う場合は、それらは規定上の着手に該当しない。

The rule in Article 9-2 is that life and death and territory are confirmed after the game is stopped.

There are 2 explanations of Article 9-2. The first explanation states that dame filling and teire are required and the second explanation states that dame filling and teire are not specified in the rules. The clarification of the second explanation (dame filling is not being specified in the rules) states that the players must agree that the dame filling is proper.

That is, even though dame filling and teire are not actually defined in the rules, there is no issue because the players must agree that the dame filling and teire are proper.

The "agreement" about dame filling has nothing to do with the actual performance of dame filling described in the first explanation, it is ONLY related to the second explanation stating that dame filling is not specified in the rules. Context is important to reading comprehension. It's literally an indented list. https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/match/kiyaku/kiyaku09.html

The rules do not allow a player to prevent proper dame filling from taking place. They only prevent a player from filling dame and playing teire incorrectly.

The the case of a supposed pseudoseki, one player can simply fill the dame after the game is stopped and make territory. If the other player wants to resume, the game is resumed without the filled dame and the other player is free to play a dame if they want.

[jann]

The rules do not allow a player to prevent proper dame filling from taking place.

Sure, the opponent can always fill dame with legal moves. But about non-moves and after-stop stone addition, the text is clear: "if agree / in which case" meaning there is also an other case - no stones can be added against a player's will (except with actual legal moves, in game/resumption).

[CDavis7M]

The rules do not allow a player to prevent proper dame filling from taking place.

Sure, the opponent can always fill dame with legal moves. But about non-moves and after-stop stone addition, the text is clear: "if agree / in which case" meaning there is also an other case - no stones can be added against a player's will (except with actual legal moves, in game/resumption).

No. This is wrong and is not based on reading comprehension. The English translation is misleading. You have been misled.

Damezume is a term of the game. It only happens after the game is stopped. Playing dame during the game is NOT damezume.



The statement about "agreement" (「駄目詰め」及び「手入れ」を、対局者の合意により、対局停止後適宜に行う場合は、それらは規定上の着手に該当しない。) is a clarification to the 2nd explanation (２　対局停止後での「駄目詰め」、「手入れ」は規定外) of 9-2, which states that damezume is not defined in the rules. This statement involving "agreement" is ONLY clarifying the 2nd explanation that damezume is not defined in the rules. That is, because damezume is not defined, the players should agree that damezume is proper. The players do not need to agree for damezume to be performed at all. In fact, damezume is required WITHOUT the player's agreement or consent by Explanation 1 of Article 9-2 (１ 「駄目詰め」、「手入れ」は必要着手). The only "agreement" in Article 9-2 is whether the damezume was proper.

Sorry if anyone's hours and hours spent make believing theories and diagrams about the Japanese Rules were a waste.

----------

The concept in the original post is also a misinterpretation. There is an example in the Japanese Rules, maybe several, to easily refute this misinterpretation. But instead of reading the rules to find out how they work, the OP decides to make his own diagrams. Time well spent.