The history of go rules

[Bantari]

Common English might prefer "live group" instead of "alive group", I'd guess. When I say "alive group", I am im rules language mode because I have defined "alive" but not "live", so I use alive as a term.

Huh?
So 'a live group' and 'alive group' are two different things?
I guess it all depends on the spacing...

[RobertJasiek]

So 'a live group' and 'alive group' are two different things?

It depends on accepted presuppositions. E.g., in strict rules English, if I work with the Japanese 2003 Rules, then "alive" is defined and so may be used while "live" is undefined and may not be used. (One could define though: "Live is alive. Life is alive. Living is alive.")

E.g., in ordinary English, presuppositions are different. There all grammatical forms of a word (in a particular meaning - not in an entirely different meaning) are already assumed to have (about) the same meaning as one particular representative grammatical form.

Things become complicated when ordinary English is used in all its variation power with different meanings for the same word, see the World Amateur Go Championship Rules with their many very different meanings of "surrounded" etc.

Lawyers like nouns so much because they have an only restricted grammatical variation. Careful rules writers or mathematicians like defined terms so much because they (almost) do not have any variation.

[RobertJasiek]

John, just in case you should want to correct typos, I have found two: " ." can be "." and "is will be" can be "will be".

***

The text speaks of "simplify" in the context that territory counting would simplify stone scoring. This makes no sense to me. It would make sense as "decreases the number of plays made until counting". Is "simplify" Chen's word or has it been introduced in the English translation?

[RobertJasiek]

I am having difficulty with the contents where it concerns the last move of an equal number of moves. If the last move of an unequal number of moves is removed / undone / not made, then (usually) this does not affect Japanese counting of a game stopped before the territory filling encore because dame are worthless. Does this mean that the last move removal in case of an unequal move number is done only if (sort of) stone scoring is counted directly? Or is always the last move removed in case of an unequal move number - even if this removes just a dame - so that at least in principle (sort of) stone scoring counted directly would yield the same result? Does this even mean that Tang rules had a form of equivalence scoring? About 12 centuries earlier than its rediscovery in the 20th century? (IOW, people at that ancient time were pretty much as educated as people nowadays. Also the printing of texts is noteworthy; at German schools you learn nothing but Gutenberg's "invention"; a reinvention of course...)

Is it really stone scoring?! From the text, I would rather guess that it was Tang Scoring, i.e., stone scoring modified by not scoring the last move in case of an unequal move number. Do you agree? - I have learned to be cautious: Does it or does it not create pass fights? (If it does, then that side effect would have been overlooked by Tang people.) - Tang Scoring can have evolved from stone scoring or from area scoring ("complete" with allowed "overflow", i.e. filling of the eyes of two-eye-formations but no removal). So the history of pre-Tang (or very early Tang) scoring is not necessarily solved yet.

Another question is whether Tang had only territory counting or whether both options of stone counting or territory counting were used.

[John Fairbairn]

Robert

You are trying far too hard to make the very slender evidence bear more than it can. You have it all. Chen is not sitting on some secret pile of information. Admittedly you may find it hard to go through the extra details in his long articles and books, but essentially you have (or can have) what he has as regards the Tang to Yuan eras, because all the games and most of the texts (translated) are available on the GoGoD CD, and that includes the Ming book that elucidates the changeover in Chinese rules. There are probably hints as regards rules in go terms used in ancient Japan (Tale of Genji etc). A long discussion of that too is on the CD. There are possibly clues in the Go Shiki other than the ones I mentioned in the piece of Genji, but I haven't published those bits yet. I don't know whether Chen has looked at the old Japanese texts yet. If not, you have even more than he has.

I repeat, essentially you have access to what Chen has, and I think you need to examine all that before you try to wrestle with his latest text (written for the layman, recall). Even then, the amount of evidence is not going to grow, so there will be many uncertain areas.

You are likewise reading far, far, far, far too much into "simplify". (For the benefit of others, Chen simply said: "People tend to simplify habitually, so the last dame will be ignored" the relevant Chinese text was 人们总是习惯的趋向简化). He is just talking about human nature, not n-simplification and q-simplification.

[RobertJasiek]

The text by Chen Zuyuan, which was first published on GoGoD's webpage, is now also available as PDF on my rules webpage:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/TangChen.pdf

Please excuse the software's trial note!

EDIT:

On request, I have removed the file, so the PDF link does not work any longer.

[John Fairbairn]

Did I miss the request to GoGoD for permission, Robert? That's two days work you've taken from me. And, unless I missed it, there's no acknowledgement of GoGoD in your pdf.

[RobertJasiek]

John, I have asked Chen for permission and his words were "Ich habe zu John Fairbairn gesagt, dass ich versprochen habe, der Artikel auf Ihrer Webseite zu veröffentlichen. Sie müssen nur eine Erklärung abgeben: Das Text wechselte von seiner Website und mit Meine Erlaubnis.". Since he is the copyright owner, I have found his statement sufficient. If you think that it is insufficient and that your rights as a translator override his rights as a copyright owner and author, then I will remove the copy of his text from my webpage. On the other hand, I would like to ask you for your permission, regardless of whether it might or might not be needed. I have been under the impression that international and German copyright laws allow publication if the copyright owner has agreed (quite like a book may be published regardless of the translators' work) but law is complicated and I might be misinformed. Therefore I would remove the copy on your request. For the sake of informing the go community, I hope though that you could give your agreement.

EDIT:

I have received the PDF from Chen. I do not have a tool for editing PDFs, so I cannot add a GoGoD remark inside the PDF. Instead my rules webpage contains the reference:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html#information

[John Fairbairn]

Robert, a translator (or editor) generally has rights to the translated (or edited) version if done with permission. The author has rights to the original.

However, I am not seeking recompense. You may use the English text as produced by me so long as you include a prominent note at the front of the pdf file acknowledging use of GoGoD's version, together with a link. Permission is limited to that use and this text.

Your argument about informing the go community rings hollow. New In Go already does that. And whether or not the law is complicated or different in various countries is beside the point. You took two days of my work without asking. I saw no word of apology from you for that.

[RobertJasiek]

Since currently I cannot edit PDFs and comply with your request of adding a note on the front of the PDF file, I will remove the file from my webpage immediately.

EDIT:

Done.

The question about rights is: Which rights? More specifically, who has the right of publishing the translation? It can depend on agreements between author and publisher, etc.

My argument about informing the go community is not an attempt to justify permission. I think that a text available on two webpages has roughly twice the potential to become widely known.

I do not think that "I took your work" is a good description. From what I know so far, you and others worked voluntarily for Chen to translate the text. In return, Chen appears to have permitted you to publish his then translated text on GoGoD's webpage. Besides Chen got the translation for his own usage. Since then Chen gave me permission (in his and my opinion) to publish his text (translated by you and, according to Chen, others), I took his work, which then also benefited from translation work, to publish it on my webpage. I think this is a valid procedure because Chen owns the copyright. AFAIK and unless there are special argeements, normally there is no such thing as an automatic separate copyright of a translation and the copyright remains with the copyright holder of the original.

Therefore, according to my current knowledge, I do not think that I have done something wrong. So there is nothing I could apologise for. That is why you have not seen a word of apology from me.

EDIT2:

Of course, it would be different if Chen had granted you (or GoGoD) exclusive rights to the publication of the translations. Due to his statement to me, I have to believe though that this is not the case.

[John Fairbairn]

If that's your view, Robert, don't ever ask me anything again. We are talking about courtesy, not n-copyright and q-copyright.

[RobertJasiek]

Apparently we have different senses of courtesy.

[daal]

Apparently we have different senses of courtesy.

Since you are carrying on a private conversation in public, I hope you don't mind if I butt in.

Yes, Robert. Apparently your sense of courtesy does not recognize the necessity of smoothing ruffled feathers when you have offended a colleague and instead requires you to justify your actions. To me, as an American, such behavior appears shocking and reprehensible. Having had similar experiences with Germans, I wonder if the tendency to bend over backwards instead of to resolve the situation with a simple apology is not akin to the Chinese necessity of not losing face. If so, I assure you that when dealing with Americans and probably with the British as well, apologizing for having stepped on someone's toes will not lower your stature, but rather allow for a return to productive interaction.

[RobertJasiek]

daal, I did not ask John for permission before putting the file on my webpage because that would have been impolite to Chen because it would have questioned his permission, his right to issue permission and the agreement between Chen and me of a possible upload on my webpage long before any translators became active. In other words, courtesy towards Chen and courtesy towards John are in conflict.

[daal]

That's water under the bridge. While it may or may not have been correct to ask for John's permission, it does not change the fact that he feels offended that you did not ask. While John has already effectively excused your transgression by granting his permission provided you acknowledge his work, you have not offered your part of the deal, which is to acknowledge that he felt snubbed by your actions and apologize for not handling the situation better. To me, not doing so seems a good deal more rude and in fact surprising than what caused the scuff in the first place. As I've seen other Germans behave similarly, perhaps it's just a cultural misunderstanding.