How do Japanese rules handle this?

jann · Post by **jann** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:40 am

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Anyway what is YOUR own interpretation? (I can easily change mine providing the new interpretation sounds clear). IOW do you agree that with your approach the group of 1 white stone is dead => seki => finally the two interpretations lead to the same result?

I think that only counting stones that only became possible because of the capture is logically necessary (except for locality based approaches). So 1 stone in torazu3 is dead, because capturing it has no effect and does not change anything wrt new plays. I don't see a problem with this, this is just go reality.

kvasir wrote:I actually don't know what this diagram was supposed to show beyond example 5, but I may also have confused with what you said about example 4 in the same post.

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

As I wrote the interesting question here is the life of W right strings. W 1 stone is likely dead but this is irrelevant here. B 4 stones are alive (partially reestablishable).

W rightmost string is alive (just like in original example 5, or its twins left to it). What this example shows is that the new uncapturable stones can happen much earlier than the actual capture (so you cannot just count stones after the capture - Cassandra), and also that it doesn't matter if the new stones were already made possible by earlier preparatory captures (like capturing the first of the three W twin strings - CDavis7M).

The rightmost W string is alive because capturing it would necessarily "give rise" to new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position). What you seem to missed is how strong W's claim is here, because to capture on the right B would need to take an areawise loss on the left (even giving up those intersections in torazu3 that he could have kept otherwise).

What happens is similar to example 2: to capture inside you need to give up something outside. This is obviously enabling in every sense - I'm not hung up on this word itself but the logical concept it represents. W rightmost string is uncapturable without taking a loss elsewhere.

kvasir wrote:I have no idea why you describe this as a traditional understanding of the 'enable rule'.

Because this is how most people understood the rule decades ago, when all this was discussed in the usenet era. And from what I saw so far, this is the only approach that works in a logical sense (besides maybe locality hacks).

kvasir · Post by **kvasir** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 4:53 am

jann wrote:
$$
$$ ---------------------------------
$$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O |
$$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O |
$$ ---------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]
As I wrote the interesting question here is the life of W right strings. W 1 stone is likely dead but this is irrelevant here. B 4 stones are alive (partially reestablishable).

It is you that is claiming these examples from J89 are wrong, that has nothing to do with the righthand side of that position.

Now you say the 1 stone is "likely" dead (you don't know?) and the 4 black stones are alive. Does that also apply to example 1? If the 4 stones are alive but the 1 stone is dead then the marked points are black territory. This is 3 points of territory for black when J89 concludes it is 0 points and Shuwa concluded it was 3 points for white. This is no small problem or minor error.

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

jann wrote:Because this is how most people understood the rule decades ago, when all this was discussed in the usenet era. And from what I saw so far, this is the only approach that works in a logical sense (besides maybe locality hacks).

Still, it is contradicted by the examples and you are claiming that is because the examples are wrong. I don't understand why you expect anyone to believe this.

jann · Post by **jann** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:48 am

kvasir wrote:Now you say the 1 stone is "likely" dead (you don't know?) and the 4 black stones are alive. Does that also apply to example 1? If the 4 stones are alive but the 1 stone is dead then the marked points are black territory. This is 3 points of territory for black when J89 concludes it is 0 points and Shuwa concluded it was 3 points for white. This is no small problem or minor error

Even in the old posts Gérard linked I wrote that the 1 stone is dead and 4 stones are alive under enable. This is just how the concept itself works out there, because capturing the 1 stone does not affect further plays and doesn't give rise (in a logically verifiable sense) to further stones. And the written rule clearly require some kind of causal connection between the new stones and the capture (or the captured string at least).

But I also said that the 1 stone is debatable and interpretation-dependent (and doesn't matter much in example 5 or my variant which is seki anyway). One just needs to find a logical connection between the new stones there and the nearby captured one (maybe based on locality). Still, I yet to see any other interpretation that would be simply and logically evaluatable in all examples, without being clearly abusable in other examples. If you know such, please do share.

J89 break away with traditions and CGT-correct scores, and introduced a new approach to L/D. Stones are alive if they cannot be CLEANLY captured without compensation / enabling something / giving rise to or forming new stones (vagueness intended). IMO this is great step forward. The way this works out in torazu3 is not my fault, regardless if the commentary wrote (whether by oversight or by intention) that the single stone is alive.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:18 am

jann wrote:
$$
$$ ---------------------------------
$$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O |
$$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O |
$$ ---------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]
As I wrote the interesting question here is the life of W right strings. W 1 stone is likely dead but this is irrelevant here. B 4 stones are alive (partially reestablishable).

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

The more seki value you have attached "behind" this kind of "no-game-end-seki" at the left (marked), the greater the deviation from the "realistic" status of this area becomes.
The same principle as below also applies for your extension to L&D Example 4.

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

In the play-sequence after

, White's seven-stone group in the centre will become play-captured; her other groups at the right are dead by collapse of the temporary seki.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 1 O X X X P P P P X P P X P P | $$ | X X O O X X X . P X . P X . P | $$ | X X O . O O X . P X . P X . P | $$ | O O O O . O X X P X X P X X P | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

The same will be true after a White play-move

in the corner.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

White's single stone at the left could be considered "dead", as there is no way for its rebirth.
Black's four stones, however, cannot be considered "independently alive", as there is no way for their COMPLETE rebirth. These stones are "alive in seki".

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

The largest part of the board is Black territory!

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:50 am

kvasir wrote:
jann wrote:
$$
$$ ---------------------------------
$$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O |
$$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O |
$$ ---------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | B B O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | B B O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]
As I wrote the interesting question here is the life of W right strings. W 1 stone is likely dead but this is irrelevant here. B 4 stones are alive (partially reestablishable).
It is you that is claiming these examples from J89 are wrong, that has nothing to do with the righthand side of that position.

Now you say the 1 stone is "likely" dead (you don't know?) and the 4 black stones are alive. Does that also apply to example 1? If the 4 stones are alive but the 1 stone is dead then the marked points are black territory. This is 3 points of territory for black when J89 concludes it is 0 points and Shuwa concluded it was 3 points for white. This is no small problem or minor error.

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

jann wrote:Because this is how most people understood the rule decades ago, when all this was discussed in the usenet era. And from what I saw so far, this is the only approach that works in a logical sense (besides maybe locality hacks).
Still, it is contradicted by the examples and you are claiming that is because the examples are wrong. I don't understand why you expect anyone to believe this.

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

For me it does not matter if the result is seki or +3 for black because in any case white will continue the game. See on the subject the post viewtopic.php?p=267480#p267480
BTW I prefer the result +3 for black but a seki doesn't harm.

Positions where a teire move is necessary in one interpretation and not in an other interpretation are more problematic because the results of the game are really different.

CDavis7M · Post by **CDavis7M** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:32 am

kvasir wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:And it's nice to talk about things that are not the rules, but what does your dictionary say about 確認? Because my dictionary defines it using 争い and 疑い.
Common! It is 'confirming' same as in 'confirming a hotel booking', 'acknowledge' as in 'acknowledge a receipt' and so forth.

Even these situations involve something unknown -- whether the reservation was actually booked or not. And even then, it's not like the hotel can't become overbooked. Some confirmation that is.

CDavis7M · Post by **CDavis7M** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:46 am

jann wrote:So 1 stone in torazu3 is dead, because capturing it has no effect and does not change anything wrt new plays.

The Japanese Rules specifically state that the 1 stone is alive. L&D has nothing to do with whether the stone "changes anything wrt new plays."

Being adamant in the face of inconsistency has as much logic as a flat Earth.

----------

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

jann wrote:W rightmost string is alive (just like in original example 5, or its twins left to it). What this example shows is that the new uncapturable stones can happen much earlier than the actual capture (so you cannot just count stones after the capture - Cassandra), and also that it doesn't matter if the new stones were already made possible by earlier preparatory captures (like capturing the first of the three W twin strings - CDavis7M).

The 5 White stones on the right are dead. Just because the White stones on the left can be captured but can newly form uncapturable stones does not mean that the White stones on the right are alive -- it just means that the stones on the left are alive.

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:52 am

jann wrote: I think I did above (around "the advantage of the straightforward/traditional interpretation"), but to make it clear:

"Capturing a string WOULD ENABLE" the opponent to play a new uncapturable stone if:
the new stone cannot be played vs resistance in the original position
(proving that it was ENABLED or made possible in the course of the capture)

the string is not capturable without the new stone getting played
(proving that capturing it WOULD indeed necessarily enable the stone)

I am not sure of my understanding.

Let's take this position you proposed yourself

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

What is the status of the marked white stones?
Taking your wording I cannot find clearly a new white stone that will be enable by the capture of the marked group (because the choice of the new uncapturable white stone is made by black and not by white) => the marked group is dead.
Is it really your view or is it an issue with your wording?

CDavis7M · Post by **CDavis7M** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:53 am

Cassandra wrote:
$$
$$ ---------------------------------
$$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O |
$$ | # # O O X X X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | # # O . O O X . O X . O X . O |
$$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O |
$$ ---------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . P X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | # # O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | # # O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]
White's single stone at the left could be considered "dead", as there is no way for its rebirth.
Black's four stones, however, cannot be considered "independently alive", as there is no way for their COMPLETE rebirth. These stones are "alive in seki".

The Japanese rules specifically state that the 1 stone is alive and the 4 stones are alive because they can newly form uncapturable stones. But yes, they are seki because they have dame.

jann · Post by **jann** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:52 am

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Let's take this position you proposed yourself
$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X O O O O O | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]
What is the status of the marked white stones?
Taking your wording I cannot find clearly a new white stone that will be enable by the capture of the marked group (because the choice of the new uncapturable white stone is made by black and not by white) => the marked group is dead.
Is it really your view or is it an issue with your wording?

The wording, and maybe the order of the two points as well. B needs to show a sequence that captures the disputed W string without W playing new uncapturable stones, OR, if W did play a new uncapturable stone, B needs to show another sequence to show how W could have played that stone regardless of the capture, already in/from the original position, and vs resistance (to prove that it was unrelated to and not made possible because of the capture).

Basically he needs to prove that he can capture without the disputed string "giving rise" or "forming" new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position, of course) - regardless of when and how those new uncapturable stones were formed during the capture attempt, all that matters is a causal relationship.

Similarly the right side in the other position (where Cassandra seemed to mis-apply his own rules

):

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

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:42 pm

jann wrote:Similarly the right side in the other position (where Cassandra seemed to mis-apply his own rules ):

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

Probably you mis-interpreted my posting

My favourite understanding:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . @ # # # @ @ @ @ # @ @ # @ @ | $$ | # # W W # # # . @ # . @ # . @ | $$ | # # W . W W # . @ # . @ # . @ | $$ | W W W W . W # # @ # # @ # # @ | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

The disputed area is a large seki (White's group in the lower left is alive).

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

White is unable to prove that she controls the entire shadowed area (there will be at least one permanent Black stone included, sequence is assumed to be well known).

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

Black is unable to prove that he controls the entire shadowed area (there will be at least one permanent White stone included, exemplary sequence below).

J89 with "new" stone AFTER capture:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . @ # # # @ @ @ @ # @ @ # @ @ | $$ | # # W W # # # . @ # . @ # . @ | $$ | # # W . W W # . @ # . @ # . @ | $$ | W W W W . W # # @ # # @ # # @ | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

The disputed area is a large seki (White's group in the lower left is alive).

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | X 2 X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | X X O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | X X O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 5 O X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | 4 3 O O X X X . O X . O X . O | $$ | . . O . O O X . O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ --------------------------------- $$ | X 8 X X X O O O O X O O X O O | $$ | O X O O X X X 7 O X . O X . O | $$ | . 6 O . O O X 9 O X . O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X O X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

is played inside the disputed area AFTER the capture of White's single stone (was at

), so it is alive.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm10 $$ --------------------------------- $$ | . O X X X C C C C X O O X O O | $$ | O 1 O O X X X X C X 2 O X . O | $$ | . O O . O O X X C X 4 O X . O | $$ | O O O O . O X X C X X O X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

is played inside the disputed area AFTER the capture of White's central group, so

is alive.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm10 $$ --------------------------------- $$ | 5 O X X X . . . . X C C X O O | $$ | O O O O X X X X . X X C X 6 O | $$ | . O O . O O X X . X X C X 8 O | $$ | O O O O . O X X . X X C X X O | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

is played inside the disputed area AFTER the capture of White's second group, so

is alive.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wm18 $$ --------------------------------- $$ | O O X X X . . . . X . . X C C | $$ | O O O O X X X X . X X . X X C | $$ | 1 O O . O O X X . X X . X X C | $$ | O O O O . O X X . X X . X X C | $$ ---------------------------------[/go]

is played inside the disputed area AFTER the capture of White's third group, so

is alive.

I assume that the sequence for proving Black's four-stone group alive is well known.

During "play":

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

*snip*

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

White has territory at the left, Black has territory at the right.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

*snip*

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

White has territory at the left, Black has territory at the right.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:09 pm

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Let's take this position you proposed yourself
$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X O O O O O | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]
What is the status of the marked white stones?
Taking your wording I cannot find clearly a new white stone that will be enable by the capture of the marked group (because the choice of the new uncapturable white stone is made by black and not by white) => the marked group is dead.
Is it really your view or is it an issue with your wording?

Jann's position above is NOT the same as the following:

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

If this was this position at the end of the game, White's marked group would be dead.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

J89 without "my" thereafter-issue:

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

White's marked stones "can" be captured, i.e. they "will" become captured. We know this FUTURE state of the board for sure.

However, ...

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

... to achieve his goal, Black MUST allow "new" permanent White stones to be created in the circled spots on the left.
This (early) permission is the mandatory requirement for the (later) capture of White's stones, so these are alive.

Gérard TAILLE · Post by **Gérard TAILLE** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 2:30 pm

jann wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:Let's take this position you proposed yourself
$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | . O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X O O O O O | $$ | . O X X X X X | $$ | . O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]
What is the status of the marked white stones?
Taking your wording I cannot find clearly a new white stone that will be enable by the capture of the marked group (because the choice of the new uncapturable white stone is made by black and not by white) => the marked group is dead.
Is it really your view or is it an issue with your wording?
The wording, and maybe the order of the two points as well. B needs to show a sequence that captures the disputed W string without W playing new uncapturable stones, OR, if W did play a new uncapturable stone, B needs to show another sequence to show how W could have played that stone regardless of the capture, already in/from the original position, and vs resistance (to prove that it was unrelated to and not made possible because of the capture).

Basically he needs to prove that he can capture without the disputed string "giving rise" or "forming" new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position, of course) - regardless of when and how those new uncapturable stones were formed during the capture attempt, all that matters is a causal relationship.

Similarly the right side in the other position (where Cassandra seemed to mis-apply his own rules ):

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

I agree completly with your text but the wording you proposed does not look perfect.

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

What is the status of the white marked stone? No doubt it is dead but what about your wording, strictly speaking ?

1) Sequence to capture the white stone:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ----------------------------- $$ | 2 X X O . O X . . . X 1 Q | $$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X 3 | $$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ----------------------------- $$ | O 4 . O . O X . . . X X . | $$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X X | $$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

2) Is it possible to prove that white can play on

in the above diagram against any resistance?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B :b1: pass $$ ----------------------------- $$ | 2 3 4 O . O X . . . X . O | $$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X . | $$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

and white cannot play on

(I mean on

in the previous diagram)
It was to resolve such issue I proposed an "extension" in my wording.

jann · Post by **jann** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:22 pm

Cassandra wrote:J89 without "my" thereafter-issue:
...
White's marked stones "can" be captured, i.e. they "will" become captured. We know this FUTURE state of the board for sure.
However, ...
$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X Q Q Q Q Q |
$$ | C O X X X X X |
$$ | C O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q . X |
$$ | B O X Q Q Q X |
$$ | X O X Q Q Q . |
$$ +---------------+
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +---------------+ $$ | . X . . X X X | $$ | X X Q Q Q Q Q | $$ | C O X X X X X | $$ | C O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q . X | $$ | B O X Q Q Q X | $$ | X O X Q Q Q . | $$ +---------------+[/go]
... to achieve his goal, Black MUST allow "new" permanent White stones to be created in the circled spots on the left.
This (early) permission is the mandatory requirement for the (later) capture of White's stones, so these are alive.

This seem to match my view, and this is also why I considered your "new stones after capture" idea (and similar timing based ideas) not correct, even theoretically: it doesn't give L/D for the stopped/scoring position, but for a later imaginary position.

It is true that once B captures the top, allowing new uncapturable stones on left, all that will be left on the board is a big dead W chunk in bottom right. At THAT POINT it will be dead (because it cannot give rise FURTHER new stones, and B don't need to take FURTHER losses to capture it). But this doesn't mean it was dead in the original position!

From that point still, capturing it would indeed produce new stones (and even lose one of B nakade strings), so there is still life in it. B needs actual moves to kill it, eliminating its future potential. And we want to score the original position according to L/D in that position, not L/D in a different position.

jann · Post by **jann** » Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:25 pm

Gérard TAILLE wrote:I agree completly with your text but the wording you proposed does not look perfect.

$$
$$ -----------------------------
$$ | . X X O . O X . . . X . Q |
$$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X . |
$$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . |
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ $$ ----------------------------- $$ | . X X O . O X . . . X . Q | $$ | O O O O O O X . . . X X . | $$ | X X X X X X X . . . . X X | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . |[/go]
What is the status of the white marked stone? No doubt it is dead but what about your wording, strictly speaking ?

Yes, this is exactly why I suggested adding the two B stones to your earlier position, to ensure B will have the choice even with W starting. B will find it hard to prove that W could have played either spot, for equal consequence, just only on B's choice (probably not impossible to prove, but still not nice).

IMO the real issue here is that J89 chose to formulate the rule around new STONES. It would be probably more robust if the rule itself would have been formulated differently:

A string is dead if the opponent can take control (occupy or surround by uncapturable stones) of all its intersections, without allowing the player to control another intersection in exchange, that he couldn't have controlled otherwise.

This would probably be similar to your proposal - and interestingly, this would flip the ruling in lightvector's position:

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

Life In 19x19

How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?

Re: How do Japanese rules handle this?