Interesting Position in Nongshim Cup Dispute

[Elom0]

If this is a draw in Korean Rules but not Japanese or Chinese rules, then I prefer the Korean rules treatment of the position.

But the fact that relevant area hasn't been defined in a ruleset professionals use amuses me, haha, it's not really a ruleset then but just guidelines I guess. I think the best rulesets are the ones that feel as basic and not like a ruleset, rather than snobbishly fill itself with endless complexities like an upper class dinner with fancy rules to show how much better it is than you, that's what unnecessarily complicated rulesets feel like to me, haha

Perhaps in football standards it's not a dispute unless it looks like a prequel to a battle scene from the godfather movies, while in baduk just mildly not reacting in immediate agreement with your opponent or the officials counts as a major dramatic discourse

[jann]

But simple examination of this position shows that any argument over a "relevant" area must be irrelevant in this case.

This is not a "normal" quadruple ko (which would be draw / no result in any Asian ruleset) but a combined moonshine life. W cannot capture during normal game (that would lead to quadruple ko), but he can try to pass instead and claim that B is not alive. Japanese and Korean rules verify those claims under altered rules.

So the question is whether B can use threats in the double ko seki to prove life of outer stones - AFTER the game have stopped. This is a rare case where even Asian rulesets differ. Both Chinese and Japanese rules see B not alive (each with its own logic, but both prevent using the double ko for life). Korean rules are an exception where it remains usable - seen as inside "relevant" area.

I was surprised to hear that most Chinese players think that Black can't make a life under the Chinese rule, especially considering that the "standard combined moonshine life" is a draw.

As you wrote Chinese rules use human judgement and list examples to help it. They list triple ko as draw and moonshine life as dead. The superko principle - when applied - should allow capturing B, and they seem to apply it for moonshine life while not apply for real triple ko. Otoh I never heard Chinese rules distinguish between remote moonshine life and a combined one. Closest they list seems a quadruple ko seki. What did you mean here?

[jaeup]

As you wrote Chinese rules use human judgement and list examples to help it. They list triple ko as draw and moonshine life as dead. The superko principle - when applied - should allow capturing B, and they seem to apply it for moonshine life while not apply for real triple ko. Otoh I never heard Chinese rules distinguish between remote moonshine life and a combined one. Closest they list seems a quadruple ko seki. What did you mean here?

I know a combined moonshine life has been finished as a draw in a Chinese tournament. But after a careful check, maybe it is a decision of the players, not the referee. http://sports.sina.com.cn/go/2008-07-19 ... 3722.shtml

But, it is weird to conclude that the combined moonshine life is dead in the Chinese rule. The rule text lists four examples of the draw, and the last one is a combined moonshine life with two external kos. Is that a draw because there are more than one external ko? But having one, two, or say 10 external kos does not really change the nature of this situation. If a group with no eye and two half-point ko's is made in a separate position (remote from the double ko seki), I don't think that group would be called alive. I am sure separated and combined moonshine lives are treated differently, at least in some cases.

[jann]

But, it is weird to conclude that the combined moonshine life is dead in the Chinese rule. The rule text lists four examples of the draw, and the last one is a combined moonshine life with two external kos. Is that a draw because there are more than one external ko?

I'm not sure which version you refer to, but beware a huge typo in Jasiek's English copy of the 2002 version (outer W stones missing in dia 4 - cf. in Chinese). The 1988 version shows the correct original of the same example (dia 5 there). "Four kos among three groups" if you meant this?

I don't think that example can be considered moonshine life, since both sides can press repetition in main game already, and one of them will likely do so. The game won't see two passes or a scoring position, so the question of moonshine life won't arise (the 1988 version is more expressive, and above dia 3 moonshine life it clearly says "at the end of the game"). Its dia 5 seems same as two remote double ko sekis - forced quadruple ko repetition in main game.

[jaeup]

I'm not sure which version you refer to, but beware a huge typo in Jasiek's English copy of the 2002 version (outer W stones missing in dia 4 - cf. in Chinese). The 1988 version shows the correct original of the same example (dia 5 there). "Four kos among three groups" if you meant this?

Wow.. that's exactly the confusion I had. Now I am speechless.

I actually checked both the English and Chinese versions when writing my book. But the Chinese version I looked up also had the same shape without the outer White stones (pdf file attached), and I never thought that there could possibly be a mistake. I assume Chinese Qiyuan distributed the wrong version at some time, and it is not the translator's fault.

[jaeup]

It is one reason I really hate a Go ruleset with diagrams presenting only local shapes being announced. It is usually due to the lack of effort, and it can lead to many confusions and speculations. I prefer the whole board shape, even in 9x9 or 13x13 board, be included in the diagram.

[jann]

I actually checked both the English and Chinese versions when writing my book. But the Chinese version I looked up also had the same shape without the outer White stones (pdf file attached), and I never thought that there could possibly be a mistake. I assume Chinese Qiyuan distributed the wrong version at some time, and it is not the translator's fault.

In any case the 1988 version seems more hintful about its logic, beyond listing examples with verdicts. Also thanks for the link on the incident of suboptimal draw with moonshine life (apparently legal, not prevented by superko or the referee). Together with "at the end of the game" this hints how they mean superko "principle".

Both that incident and the Nongshim dispute shows that most players only know basic rules. Which is understandable, so instead the rules themselves need to be more faithful to those basics. Asian rules at least try this for most cycles (except moonshine mess).

[Elom0]

I like the fact that these stones are not dead under Korean rules. The life and death status of groups should be based on what can actually be done with actual moves and passes, so I feel moonshine life should always be considered alive, in fact I personally feel the best solution is simply to score the game as is at the end of the ko cycle.

We derive things like two eyes to live from our experience on what a group needs to live. It's silly to then apply it backwards, saying something like a group must have two eyes to be considered alive, and any other ways of being alive we won't consider, regardless of whether in actual play it lives or not

[RobertJasiek]

a huge typo in Jasiek's English copy of the 2002 version (outer W stones missing in dia 4 - cf. in Chinese). The 1988 version shows the correct original of the same example (dia 5 there).

I host the file but, of course, have not created it and its typo. Thank you for pointing it out!