AGA Rules vs. Japanese

[Bill Spight]

I'm not quite sure how to take "redefined the game of go", as I don't think that was the intention.

Me, either. But that was the result, in more than a trivial manner. (Obviously, all rules changes redefine the game to some extent.)

Not obvious.

(Now you come back and say "it is too obvious" and that's a reasonable discussion )

A game is defined by its rules.

Edit: End of discussion.

[jts]

Are you sure that you like it that traditionally called independently alive groups are called sekis or do you like only the strategic effect that, in order to get territory, a player has to fill all adjacent dame? It would be possible to add such a rule WITHOUT calling any independently alive group a "seki".

Are you sure that you want an arcane extra rule that, provided players do fill all 2-sided dame they can fill, changes strategy of only 1 of 50,000 games? Is this more important to you than annoying all players, who have to be aware of the extra artificial rule, in the other 49,999 games?

This fetishizes the word "seki". I don't particularly care what we call live groups which don't have points in Japanese rules; if they had come up with another name, you would be complaining about how it annoys players, who have to be aware of an artificial extra name that only crops up very rarely. But yes, it's the strategic effect that I find interesting (in the same way I find the strategic effect of the triple ko rule interesting).

[jts]

Me, either. But that was the result, in more than a trivial manner. (Obviously, all rules changes redefine the game to some extent.)

Not obvious.

(Now you come back and say "it is too obvious" and that's a reasonable discussion )

A game is defined by its rules.

Edit: End of discussion.

You seem to be thinking of board games, but there are others. You can make your definition correct by expressly restricting it to those games.


Where is the connexion effected between the sense of the expression "Let's play a game of go" and all the rules of the game? — Well, in the list of rules of the game, in the teaching of it, in the day-to-day practice of playing.

[John Fairbairn]

Oh. It is the first time I hear about that in Japanese tournament rules.

There's quite a bit you clearly haven't heard about in Japanese rules, Robert. In this case, Kudo gives guidance that seems to accord with western practice. He says that playing a move with the right hand and pressing the clock with the left is not an automatic loss (hansoku make) but an infringement of the rules (ruuru ihan), and if this arises the referee should be consulted straightaway. He does not give a specific ruling but rather goes on to point out that if there is a definite pause between move and press, he would not see that as a cause for concern. (There is, however, an implication in the question that a player who rests his left hand on the clock would be ticked off at least).

A game is defined by its rules.

The whole point of the Japanese approach is that that the rules don't define the game - a social compact allowing for judgement calls ranks higher. Just like that most civilised of games, cricket (and baseball, I'll allow, too).

On that last topic, anyone out there able and willing to give Mark and me advice on getting to the games in LA without a car? We've got San Francisco and San Diego covered, but LA seems to be more of a logistical challenge. We were staggered to see that you can't even get a train from SF to LA - two long bus journeys bookending a train seem to be required. Viability of travel determines whether or not I'll get in a day at the congress, but Mark (and GoGoD) will be there anyway.

[willemien]

A game is defined by its rules.

Edit: End of discussion.

Wittgenstein: Philosophical investigations, paragraph 100:

But still, it isn't a game, if there is some vagueness in the rules - But does this prevent its being a game? - "Perhaps you'll call it a game, but at any rate it certainly isn't a complete game." This means: it has its impureties, and what I am interested in at the present is the pure article. - But I want to say: we misunderstand the role of the ideal in our language. That is to say: we should indeed call it a game, only we are dazzled by the ideal and therefore fail to see the actual use of the word "game" clearly.

Not that i like Wittgenstein

But i just aaded this quote to sensei's

[RobertJasiek]

surely Robert would not object to such play as within the rules.

That was not the topic but for reference: Without more restrictive tournament rules, I belong to the legal moves are legal faction because then referee decisions are extraordinarily predictable and therefore fair.

I suspect Robert could have realized this from the admonition to "leave five minutes for the small endgame moves"

When writing speaks of pro games and of a nation's games in general without clearly specifying the context for each sentence, then it is hard for me to realize which context is being meant.

but he was probably too fixated in finding ways to criticize anything coming from Japan about rules.

1) See above.

2) I do not criticise all from Japan about rules but (...see earlier discussions...).

3) I criticise invalid excuses for bad rules.

[RobertJasiek]

That was a difficult task for two reasons. First, there was the question of how to handle kos at the end of play. Second, there was the fact that the Japanese rules do not count points in seki.

The two most difficult tasks were:
1) Describing decision-making in proof-play generally.
2) Modelling "life" in general.

A solution for (1) was avoided rather than attacked. (2) remained incomplete.

The Japanese ko tradition issues are mainly symptoms of these core problems.

The redefinition of life, death, and seki was profound

Rather it missed the core (1), had ambiguity etc. and had the capturable-2 gap. At the same time, it was clever to approach life via capturability at all, to invent the dame defines seki concept and to produce an official commentary with - apart from oversights - a consistent (almost logical) subconscious understanding of local-2 and capturable-2. Without the latter, I could not have found the formal concepts (or would have needed decades longer).

[RobertJasiek]

There's quite a bit you clearly haven't heard about in Japanese rules

Presumably I have missed most tournament rules so far. Too few are translated despite your heroic efforts.

EDIT:

The whole point of the Japanese approach is that that the rules don't define the game

It appears to be your idea that that state is an ideal while the J1989 authors made so serious attempts to define the game that that must have been their intention.

[oren]

On that last topic, anyone out there able and willing to give Mark and me advice on getting to the games in LA without a car? We've got San Francisco and San Diego covered, but LA seems to be more of a logistical challenge. We were staggered to see that you can't even get a train from SF to LA - two long bus journeys bookending a train seem to be required. Viability of travel determines whether or not I'll get in a day at the congress, but Mark (and GoGoD) will be there anyway.

That will be a serious challenge from my memory of LA. I think you'll have to taxi or offer a signed book copy to some local go fans for a ride. Are you going to hit Anaheim too while there?

It's a shame you won't make it for the Mariners.

You can fly fairly cheap from Northern California to Southern California. There's been talk of a high speed rail connecting the two, but I doubt we'll ever be seeing it.

[hyperpape]

Bill: You can talk about games as mathematical entities, and rules as logically/mathematically structured statements. You can also talk about games or rules as a feature of human behavior.

In both senses, games are defined by their rules. The mathematical entities are individuated by their rules. Any change gives you a distinct game, so there is a standard for when two games are the same (not necessarily a practically applicable standard--you might have to prove something very difficult).

The human activities are defined by their rules. Chess is not Go, and we can tell because one has checkmate and the other doesn't. No game without checkmate is Chess, no game with checkmate is Go. On the other hand, I find it pretty obvious that Go is Go whether komi is 5.5 or 6.5. But just because some cases are easy, doesn't mean they all are, and we can't even say ahead of time whether all such questions will have answers.

The thing is, the rules in the case of human activity need not themselves be precisely individuated the way mathematical statements need to be. In that sense, Go had rules before we got a perfectly clear set of ko rules. Given that, I don't think you can say that just changing the ko rules gives you a different game.

[hyperpape]

@Robert: To make this explicit, John's post said nothing about the time-gaining timesujis. It only said that the time-wasting tesujis would be punished (by Kudo, were he referree). Given that, your criticism was not accurate.

[Bill Spight]

I'm not quite sure how to take "redefined the game of go", as I don't think that was the intention.

Me, either. But that was the result, in more than a trivial manner. (Obviously, all rules changes redefine the game to some extent.)

Not obvious.

(Now you come back and say "it is too obvious" and that's a reasonable discussion )

A game is defined by its rules.

Edit: End of discussion.

I knew that "End of discussion" was a joke, but this is ridiculous.

While a discussion about the meaning of "game", "rule", and "define" would be interesting, I'll pass for that ko.

I hope that it is clear that when I said that the J89 rules redefined the game of go, I was not talking about minor changes. If you think that not all rules changes redefine a game, fine. If you think that games are not defined, and hence cannot be redefined, fine. Let's say, "significantly alter" instead of "redefine".

[Bill Spight]

A game is defined by its rules.

The whole point of the Japanese approach is that that the rules don't define the game - a social compact allowing for judgement calls ranks higher. Just like that most civilised of games, cricket (and baseball, I'll allow, too).

On that last topic, anyone out there able and willing to give Mark and me advice on getting to the games in LA without a car?

To be facetious, in baseball terms, you can take a walk. To be serious, it can be dangerous to walk at night in LA, and besides, LA was built for cars. I lived there for three months and mostly took taxis to get around.

I do not agree that the approach of the J89 rules is that the rules do not define the game. I think that they are very much in the legalistic tradition, and do attempt to define the game. And that is at the root of their problem!

[John Fairbairn]

To be serious, it can be dangerous to walk at night in LA, and besides, LA was built for cars. I lived there for three months and mostly took taxis to get around.

Thanks, but this we know - or at least believe, thanks to Hollywood. But the Dodgers site says (hidden away) that there are Amtrak and Metroline trains to the stadium from Union Station. What they don't say is whether these are safe, and reliable for getting back. And, similarly, the problem with taxis is not so much paying for them as finding one back from the ballpark late at night. However, I think I overlap with a couple of day games.

The late-at-night problem also surfaces with Anaheim.

Was that walk you offered due to lack of control:). Was it HBP? Was it your best stuff?

It's just struck me (not HBP this time - just the dinosaur's tail twitching at last), you have armies of US officials terrified of people coming into America, and most of those trying to getting in terrified of what will happen when they get there. Shomething wrong, shurely....

[Bill Spight]

To be serious, it can be dangerous to walk at night in LA, and besides, LA was built for cars. I lived there for three months and mostly took taxis to get around.

Thanks, but this we know - or at least believe, thanks to Hollywood. But the Dodgers site says (hidden away) that there are Amtrak and Metroline trains to the stadium from Union Station. What they don't say is whether these are safe, and reliable for getting back. And, similarly, the problem with taxis is not so much paying for them as finding one back from the ballpark late at night. However, I think I overlap with a couple of day games.

The late-at-night problem also surfaces with Anaheim.

Yes, getting back late at night is the main problem. However, if there is not good public transportation from the stadium then, it will probably be pretty easy to get a taxi.