Example for a definition:CDavis7M wrote:Yes. Did you get a copy of the Advanced Learners dictionary yet?Cassandra wrote:Do you actually care what a "definition" is?CDavis7M wrote:* snip *
* snip *
I don't know why you are defining words when we are talking about definitions of things other than words (ie board positions). A bit irrelevant but OK.Cassandra wrote:String = a set of stones of the same colour, which are solidly connected to each other along the lines of the board.
In my Go world, "string" is a (part of a) "board position". Not in yours???CDavis7M wrote:I don't know why you are defining words when we are talking about definitions of things other than words (ie board positions). A bit irrelevant but OK.Cassandra wrote:String = a set of stones of the same colour, which are solidly connected to each other along the lines of the board.
It's not my opinion. It's Kano Yoshinori's opinion. It's Kudo Norio's opinion. And the opinions of Sakai Takeshi, Oeda Yusuke, Saijo Masataka, Goro Fujita, Shinoda Shigehito, and Shigerushi Hata.Cassandra wrote:And I don't think that you want to TALK. You want to SPEAK, letting others know YOUR opinion.
I'll rely on Fairbairn's translation.Gérard TAILLE wrote: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?
and 
that cannot be captured by Black. Moves like are not uncapturable unless a move like 
reduces liberties in capturing. The 5 stones are capturable and it is those capturable stones that are the ones that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent because it is those stones ( 
) that reduce Black's liberties such that the uncapturable stones can be formed. And without , Black can just connect. and used to show that the 5 stones are alive can somehow be used to prove that the different and separate group of 11 White stones alive. Those 11 stones do not contribute anything to the formation of the new uncapturable stones. The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all. Although I am a fan of "THEREAFTER" (rebirth is only possible AFTER death, not before), I also sympathise with jann's interpretation.CDavis7M wrote:Unlike other people, I'm not going to pretend that
string depends on the L&D-status of her stones outside that temporary seki on the other side of Black's string.Seeing your argument "The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all" I can propose another example for which this argument does not exist: In this position black can choose to capture either the white stones in the upper left corner or the white stones in the bottom left corner (like in the previous position) but here (unlike the previous position) black must always BEGIN by capturing the white marked stones.CDavis7M wrote:I'll rely on Fairbairn's translation.Gérard TAILLE wrote: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?
Stones which cannot be captured by moves of the opponent, or stones which, even if they can be captured, can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent, are called 'live stones.' Stones other than live stones are called 'dead stones.' The 5 White stones on the upper side are alive because even though they can be captured by Black, they can newly form stones
Unlike other people, I'm not going to pretend that
----------
I haven't spent much time looking at the other seki collapse position that was presented, but I believe I have a similar position there (also against the position of others).
Note my point that I underlined above.Gérard TAILLE wrote:Seeing your argument "The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all" I can propose another example for which this argument does not exist...CDavis7M wrote:The 5 White stones on the upper side are alive because even though they can be captured by Black, they can newly form stones
. But does a new uncapturable stone mean anything by itself? I don't think so because in an actual game-play position, new uncapturable stones can always be played somewhere on the board (filling dame, territory, etc).
Backing up, the real question is whether it is these 9 White stones that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent -- is there some game-mechanic in the Game of Go that gives those 9 stones the ability to form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent. Or is it actually some other stones that already have that ability give the game mechanics? 
. If Black tries, 
will reduce his liberties of 
and White can capture with . So yes, those 9 White stones are living stones because they contribute to the formation of the new uncapturable stones.
did not have the ability to reduce the liberty of . In this case, does not capture Black's stones because would have a liberty were it not for . cannot even be played, letting 
capture White, preventing the formation of new uncapturable stones.
The 9 stones are live. This is similar to Example 4.
have no ability to form new uncapturable stones. There's no game mechanic that let's them contribute to the formation. It is the other White stones that already have that ability. They are already alive when considered separately.
do not contribute to reducing the liberties of ? Then is not suicide and 
can capture. But that is not the point. The question is: can Black can prevent 
from being uncapturable even if do not reduce liberties? No (this should be the case because their L&D status is independent). Even in a situation where contribute nothing, White can still form an uncapturable stone even in the situation where Black connects. Because White can form uncapturable stones even if the 5 White stone's contribute nothing, then it is not the 5 White stones in the corner that can newly form stones that cannot be captured by the opponent. Those 5 White stones are dead.
----------CDavis7M wrote:Consider if
CDavis7M wrote:Note my point that I underlined above.Gérard TAILLE wrote:Seeing your argument "The uncapturable stones can be formed without those stones being captured at all" I can propose another example for which this argument does not exist...CDavis7M wrote:The 5 White stones on the upper side are alive because even though they can be captured by Black, they can newly form stones
Let's try to capture the 9 White stones. Indeed there is a new uncapturable stone
Let's see what happens when Black tries to prevent the formation of the new uncapturable stones with
This is easy to confirm. Consider if
----------
Here we can see that
I agree with you Jann, I also consider all groups alive in these diagrams.jann wrote: IMO there is zero doubt that the bottom/right is also alive in both cases. This is not like lightvector's position or torazu3 where there are at least alternatives (in lightvector's case the current ruling is only caused by careless wording, referring to enabled STONES instead of control as mentioned above). A similar variant can be made for example 2:
Again the entire right is alive (both W strings). And B won't even dare to capture in real game - this is permanent seki. J89 (and even J2003) has no problems here: attempting to capture either W string would enable or give rise to new stones (compared to the original position OC, for these reasons). It doesn't matter if he captures in one move or in two parts (nor does the rule have any additional condition on new stones).
And this is not even specific to J89 or the enable rule: example 2 was considered alive and seki even in J1949 (and maybe even before that, in traditional go). J89 changed a few special cases wrt L/D, but for the most part it only introduced a logical explanation. Alive includes uncapturable stones, capturable but replayable stones, and stones that are not really capturable only exchangeable. Exchanges need to be played out, scoring cannot grant them. And especially cannot score a string as dead while the other side of the exchange (the B string that would be lost) as alive.
Well, because we are talking about capturable stones then the sequence is relevant. And even if you ignore the sequence, the game mechanics can still recognized from the final board position alone. It should be clear whether which stones were the ones that could create the uncapturable stone. In some diagrams a group of stones is completely separate. In other diagrams they are not. The relation between the stones and the new uncapturable stone can be seen just by looking at the intersections.Gérard TAILLE wrote:In Diag1 you consider that the marked stones are dead because they have "no ability to form new uncapturable stones".
But in Diag2 you consider that the marked stones are alive because they have this ability to form new uncapturable stones.
This result is strange for me and I have to work harder in order to really understand.
My view is the following : for a go player looking for the status of a group, the sequence itself is not relevant. What is relevant is the final position reached after the chosen sequence. In this FINAL position the player can look at the captured stones as well as the new uncapturable stones created and decide whether a group of stones is alive or not.
In diagram 1, the capture of C happens by extraneous moves. Playing moves to capture C is similar to as if the player determined L&D in the upper corner and then started to play an atari in a nakade shape in the lower corner. There is no need to do that because L&D status in the upper and lower corners can already be determined. This is the same issue with the 5 stones in diagram previously discussed. Capture of the 5 stones is extraneous. The L&D of the 1 stone is not interdependent on the 5 stones.Gérard TAILLE wrote: Let's call A and B the two unmarked white groups of stones in Diag 1 or 2 and let's call C the white marked group in Diag 1 or 2
In both diagram:
1) the three A, B, C groups are capturable
2) the two A, B groups cannot be simultaneously captured
3) Black can capture A and C but in this case uncapturable stones are created towards B
4) Black can capture B and C but in this case uncapturable stones are created towards A
What difference you see between these two diagrams for a player looking at the status of these groups?
BTW what is the status of the two unmarked white groups in Diag 2 ?
Which portion of the rules provides a basis for this interpretation?jann wrote: IMO there is zero doubt the bottom/right is also alive both cases.
is alive. By the reasoning in Examples 15-18 is dead. The fact that can form new uncapturable stones only shows that is alive. It does not show that is alive. to capture the capturing Black stones that allows formation of new stones. The are completely out of the picture. They don't contribute anything to 's formation of the uncapturable stones.
----------Again, I disagree. This position is like a combination of Example 2 and Example 14. As in Example 2,jann wrote: Again the entire right is alive (both W strings). And B won't even dare to capture in real game - this is permanent seki. J89 (and even J2003) have no problem here: attempting to capture either W string would enable or give rise to new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position OC, for these reasons). It doesn't matter if he captures in one move or in two parts (nor have the rule any additional condition on new stones).
is alive because even though it can be captured it can newly form uncapturable stones. However, as in Example 14, the other White stones are dead without White teire. It doesn't matter whether can capture other black stones to form uncapturable stones. What matter is whether can form uncapturable stones itself. As in Example 2, doesn't need teire. But as in Example 14, does. I just follow the Examples.I don't see a position even close to this one mentioned in the 1949 Japanese Go Rules. I only see a different rendition of what is now Example 2. What section are you looking at? Or are you just guessing?jann wrote: And this is not even specific to J89 or the enable rule: example 2 was considered alive and seki even in J1949 (and maybe even before that).
I understand you consider the white stones at the right are dead. Does that mean that black has 14 points (territory + prisonners) on the right side ?CDavis7M wrote:Again, I disagree. This position is like a combination of Example 2 and Example 14. As in Example 2,jann wrote: Again the entire right is alive (both W strings). And B won't even dare to capture in real game - this is permanent seki. J89 (and even J2003) have no problem here: attempting to capture either W string would enable or give rise to new uncapturable stones (compared to the original position OC, for these reasons). It doesn't matter if he captures in one move or in two parts (nor have the rule any additional condition on new stones).