How do Japanese rules handle this?

[CDavis7M]

Would someone be willing to try to explain to me what this and similar threads are actually about?

The main issue always seems to be whether one player can win without teire or whether they lose the game, either by playing teire or by the rules making claimed-territory into dame when teire is not played. That is the question in this tread: does white get territory at b-e without White teire at a-d?

$$
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O e O b X c d O O . O
$$ | O O O X O X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O a O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ -----------------------
$$ | O e O b X c d O O . O
$$ | O O O X O X O O O O O
$$ | X X X O a O O . O . .
$$ | X . X O O O O O . . .
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

The argument seems to be about the confirmation phase. But I have never (I think) come across a single case where a confirmation phase has ever been needed.

Well, the "confirmation phase" is just a formal time to fill dame and argue about whether teire is required, whether stones are seki, and sometimes both. In The Incident Room, we see Takahashi argue about seki, Segoe mess up dame filling, Rin not wanting to play teire, and Sakata resuming the game. All sorts of "confirmation phase" activities.

My tentative conclusion is that, to continue the zoological analogy, it's just a case of passing the time by pulling the legs off spiders.

Actually, we are arguing about whether we need to put the legs back on.

[Gérard TAILLE]

we are in a double ko situation and we know that, strictly speaking, the rule does not handle correctly a double ko situation.

They don't? I missed that discussion. Would you point me to it?

First of all you can look at Robert Jasiek commentary of J89 : http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html, Example II.17
Then you can look at "Japonese counting" thread from post viewtopic.php?p=266527#p266527 and lot of following posts.
Finally you can look at viewtopic.php?f=45&t=18377 thread in which I proposed a solution to handle double ko issue.

[CDavis7M]

First of all you can look at Robert Jasiek commentary of J89 : http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html, Example II.17
Then you can look at "Japonese counting" thread from post viewtopic.php?p=266527#p266527 and lot of following posts.
Finally you can look at viewtopic.php?f=45&t=18377 thread in which I proposed a solution to handle double ko issue.

Thank you. I have actually heard of this non-issue before. People are confused because they haven't read the Preamble (https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/match/kiyaku/) or the Summary of the Revision (https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/match/kiyaku/gaiyo-00.html) in the Japanese Rules, which are not in the English translation by Davies.

One misconception is that "hypothetical play" actually happens during L&D Confirmation and that such hypothetical play is actually required in order to confirm L&D status. However, hypothetical play is not required when L&D status can be confirmed by definition/ruling.

Another misconception is that the Japanese Rules no longer rely on the old rulings and tradition and instead rely on the new rules for seki, passing for kos, and so on in the Confirmation of L&D. However, there is nothing in the Rules that state this and the Examples clearly show otherwise.

The Preamble states that the Rules Committee sought to determine an overarching rationale for past rulings. The Committee determined the rationale to be the "pass requirement" for kos in L&D Confirmation. That's all they did. The pass requirement is merely a rationale for the rulings. Inconsistent rulings were dismissed but the consistent rulings remain. The Revision to the Rules did not state that past rulings would no longer be relied on, and they did not state that players would actually engage in hypothetical play.

The Japanese Rules provide a variety of definitions for the consistent rulings and the Committee shows how those definitions have consistency based on the "pass requirement" rationale. Once the primary rulings are defined, the Japanese Rules show compound examples relying on multiple definitions/rulings. In such cases the Committee simply applies the rulings by definition without any need to prove consistency using hypothetical play. There is no need for a position to be proved by hypothetical play because consistency has been shown in the definition. The misconceptions mentioned above come from taking the Examples out of context.

For example:
--Example 7 defines bent-4 in the corner as being living stones, even with a double-ko.
--Examples 16 and 17 define what a seki collapse is.
--Example 18 includes bent-4 in the corner and a seki collapse by their definitions. There is no need to perform hypothetical play in Example 18 since since Black is dead by the definition of bent-4 and seki collapse. And as you mentioned, attempting to perform hypothetical play might lead into a never ending series of retakes and passes.

----------

I've mentioned this elsewhere but was dismissed by people by people who prefer to fight against apparent inconsistency. Instead of fighting, I just read everything at once, recognize the context, and find the understanding that provides consistency.

If you think that an Example in the Japanese Rules doesn't work, it's not that the Rules don't work, it's that you misunderstand how they work.

[Gérard TAILLE]

One misconception is that "hypothetical play" actually happens during L&D Confirmation and that such hypothetical play is actually required in order to confirm L&D status. However, hypothetical play is not required when L&D status can be confirmed by definition/ruling.

Let me try to understand your point

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

In this position, when using NORMAL play it is quite easy for the players to agree that the three black stones are dead and white do not need to add a teire move.
Taking what you said can I conclude that this situation does not require any hypothetical play and can I conclude that the top part is white territory with three black stones captured, without any white teire move added?
If it is true then this position presents no more problem does it?

[CDavis7M]

In this position, when using NORMAL play it is quite easy for the players to agree that the three black stones are dead and white do not need to add a teire move.

Whoa, slow down. The players do NOT "agree" to anything about L&D status and teire during normal play. Agreeing about status and teire is something that only happens after the game is stopped. The players can either play the moves or not, there is no agreement what the result would be. And while a move for teire purposes can be played in the game, teire itself is a term of L&D confirmation.

Taking what you said can I conclude that this situation does not require any hypothetical play and can I conclude that the top part is white territory with three black stones captured, without any white teire move added?

No. I said that the Japanese Rules provide definitions/rulings and that those can be applied without so-called hypothetical play. There is no definition/ruling for this position we are discussing otherwise we would not be discussing it. So there is nothing to apply.

The positions that have definitions/rulings often are labeled so that the players know when/where to apply it, like:
「取らず三目」- torazu sanmoku "3 points without capturing" (now a misnomer)
手入れ不要 - teire required
「ハネゼキ」hanezeki (hane-seki)
長生 - Chosei - Eternal Life
「隅の曲り四目」 - "Bent 4 in the corner"
「隅の曲り四目」と「万年劫」の併存 - "Bent 4 with a ten thousand year ko"
「眼あり眼なし三劫」- me ari me nashi - eye vs no eye in a triple ko
本劫の手入れ - teire for direct ko
一手ヨセ劫手入れ不要 - no teire for direct yose ko
「両劫に仮生一」 - temporary life by double ko.
「万年劫」 - Ten thousand year ko
「地」の確定のための駄目詰め―二段劫 - dame filling to determine territory for a 2 step ko
「両劫ゼキ」- double ko seki

[CDavis7M]

While looking for consistency and thinking more about the definitions in the Japanese Rules I noticed many situations where moves of the opponent can capture stones but they can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent. However, many of these situations are seki without territory.

The only situations where moves of the opponent can capture stones but they can newly form uncapturable stones that actually have territory is when the newly formed stones are uncapturable because they captured those same moves of the opponent which captured the original stones.

• nakade (shown but not mentioned)
• bent-4 in the corner
• snapback
• approach yose ko (teire not needed)

[CDavis7M]

While looking for consistency and thinking more about the definitions in the Japanese Rules I noticed many situations where moves of the opponent can capture stones but they can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent. However, many of these situations are seki without territory.

The only situations where moves of the opponent can capture stones but they can newly form uncapturable stones that actually have territory is when the newly formed stones are uncapturable because they captured those same moves of the opponent which captured the original stones.

• nakade (shown but not mentioned)
• bent-4 in the corner
• snapback
• approach yose ko (teire not needed)

[kvasir]

As you can see this alone position adresses number of issues and we can be sure that a common interpretation is quite impossible to reach.
Anyway any comment are welcome.

This game is played, nominally, with these rules by millions of people. If it was a thing that defending a liberty using double ko required the double ko to be resolved before the end of the game, then there would be many examples of exactly this. It is not at all an uncommon situation.

Anyone that wants to take a position on things like "it is impossible to agree", "most of us think", "the traditional view is" and "life and death example 1 is wrong", or really anything like that, should at least know what kind of evidence is needed to support such opinions.

[kvasir]

Claiming that this example is not ZERO, that the rules text is wrong and so on is bound to raise the question what this has to do with J89.
...
My opinion is simply that there is no reason to read this requirement into J89, when it fails spectacularly(?)

I think the traditional interpretation does NOT fail. It actually works well, and provides a robust L/D theory - no small feat - with clear reasoning of the "whys". And nobody said "the rules text is wrong". I (we) merely notice that the commentary on example 1 contradicts the actual rules text (7.1), especially in the English version (which is debatable OC but still). And for the above reason the rules text make more sense than the commentary here.

It is not a "traditional" interpretation it is just a first impression. Besides, it is hardly relevant if the tradition is rec.games.go unless you are willing to restate the reasoning, analyzes or whatever the evidence was. So far you are claiming many things beyond the first claim about what the enabling rule means, at least the first claim was something I could have accepted if I agreed. I just don't understand why you want to substantiate an opinion by claiming life and death example 1 is wrong but not actually try to substantiate this claim.

For example you said my explanation might be described as (always) "involving" new stones but that would still be a causal connection; this could also be called 'creating new stones as a side effect'.

The problem is "involve" does not make a clear, logically verifiable claim. If a player says that a capture "involves" a new stone on one-sided dame, how do you refute it? The capture cannot be performed without it if the defender is allowed to play freely - and no stone is ever enabled if he isn't.

I guess the "involve" approach would consist of playing out the capture, where both sides play for their original goal (maximize territory), and see what new stones were played in the vicinity. But playing out the capture already loses points, so it doesn't seem clear what logic would dictate the moves in this case. And I doubt this could compare to the clarity and robustness of the "made possible" approach.

You said it only "involves" the stones. What I said was that the capture could not be made without allowing these stones to be played. I don't understand why I get this "tradition" thing leveled at it, especially when the tradition is rec.games.go with only assurances that everyone agreed. I also explained how in this position some of the stones played could be seen as being on the boarder of white and black, this is of because black is capturable and there is therefore no one sided dame. If black was not capturable then this argument was not meant to apply. I might try to explain this again later.

I think you are taking something that was a reply to a question that was something like this "what makes these points different from points that can't count as 'enabling'" and trying to turn it on its head.

[Cassandra]

--Example 7 defines bent-4 in the corner as being living stones, even ...

Bent-four-in-the-corner is

NOT "defined" alive

within J89!!! NOWHERE.
Neither it is "defined" dead anywhere.
Everything depends on the outcome of the position's assessment, utilising "hypothetical play".

BTW:
L&D Example 7-1 shows a position, where the single bent-four-in-the-corner is assessed "dead".
L&D Example 7-2 has the bent-four-in-the-corner combined with a mannen-ko, and is also assessed "dead".
L&D Examples 19 and 20 show positions, where the bent-four-in-the-corner is assessed "alive".

[jann]

It is not a "traditional" interpretation it is just a first impression.

I guess you oppose that label as somehow giving more credit to "made possible" than it deserves. Any name is ok (old/usenet/whatever interpretation). And it likely has something to do with first impressions (enable = make able, make possible and allow).

The things that support this are the English text, its convincing logic, and the ease and clarity of application (both "is it capturable without the new stone?" "could the new stone have been played anyway?" are directly provable by sequences where the players' objectives are clear).

You said it only "involves" the stones. What I said was that the capture could not be made without allowing these stones to be played. ... I also explained how in this position some of the stones played could be seen as being on the boarder of white and black, this is of because black is capturable and there is therefore no one sided dame.

I think "(necessarily) involve" also implies that the capture is not possible without the new stones - I understood you meant this. But this seems harder to verify with one-sided dame (without the "was it possible anyway?" check which you refuse), since hypothetical play is global. You will probably change this (a painful difference to J89) and define some kind of locality (though one-sided dame might appear near as well) - with your border idea.

My doubts are about clear objectives for players in hypothetical sequences, and the missing definition for locality (assuming any new stone in the locality counts). Also note that in torazu3 the single stone can be captured WITHOUT penalty or compensation - this casts objective doubts on attempts to make it alive.

[Gérard TAILLE]

$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | 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 white marked stones?

CDavies7M, I did not see your interpretation concerning this position above. I believe you will conclude that the marked white stones are dead but I am not quite sure.
Could you show us your analysis?

[CDavis7M]

--Example 7 defines bent-4 in the corner as being living stones, even ...

Bent-four-in-the-corner is
NOT "defined" alive
within J89!!! NOWHERE.
Neither it is "defined" dead anywhere.
Everything depends on the outcome of the position's assessment, utilising "hypothetical play".

If you can't be bothered to read the rules then at least don't make stuff. It just looks bad. Your statement is directly contradicted by what the Japanese Rules Committee wrote. If you just read the Preamble and the Summary of the Revision then your misconceptions would be cleared up.

By the way, even without reading it should be clear to you that your position is wrong because it fails to actually work in some positions, like the one in Example 18. There is consistency, just read to find it. I'll explain.

Before the Revision, there was a ruling that defined stones having Bent-4 in the corner as being dead. Do you disagree?

Then the Committee took over the Rules and Revised them. The Committee explicitly explains in the Summary of the Revision that the entire point of the Revision was to provide definition (meikaku ka 明確化) and theorization (riron ka 理論化) of the rationality (gori sei 合理性) in the existing Japanese Rules. Do you disagree?

In the Summary and in the actual Example of Bent-4 in the corner, the Committee specifically states that the Example is theorizing the reason for the ruling. Do you disagree?

If the words of the Committee are actually read, I can't see any possibility of disagreement. The Examples in the Revision merely provide definitions and explain the rationality in the previous rulings. The Japanese Rules still have rulings that define the L&D status of positions. No where do the Rules state that so-called hypothetical-play is part of the actual game of Go. It is merely a tool for showing the rationality and consistency of the rulings.

----------

BTW:
L&D Example 7-1 shows a position, where the single bent-four-in-the-corner is assessed "dead".
L&D Example 7-2 has the bent-four-in-the-corner combined with a mannen-ko, and is also assessed "dead".
L&D Examples 19 and 20 show positions, where the bent-four-in-the-corner is assessed "alive".

Do you know what a ruling is? It defines the status of one game position. It doesn't define the status for different game positions. Examples 19 and 20 are different positions because the outside liberties are different. This is the entire point of Examples 18-20, they how out the liberties change the status.

By the way, did you bother to read the caption to Example 7? It clearly shows that the Example provides a definition that is consistent with the theorized rationale as the Committee stated.

黒三子は「活き石」であり、白七子は「死に石」である。
１図、２図は白七子が「死に石」である理由。

The first line defines the L&D status.
The second line refers to the diagrams which show the rationale.

[Cassandra]

* snip *

Do you actually care what a "definition" is?

[CDavis7M]

* snip *

Do you actually care what a "definition" is?

Yes. Did you get a copy of the Advanced Learners dictionary yet?
If you did you might see something similar to my understanding of a definition: a definition is a description of the nature of something (OED). In this context, a definition is a description of the L&D status of a board position. The Revision to the Rules provides example board positions and describes the L&D status of those positions. They are explicitly stated to be definitions of the prior Japanese Rulings. These example board positions are definitions.

Do you actually care what 明確化 is?