Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/
Yes but no because White will play teire so it's seki.Gérard TAILLE wrote:Does that mean that black has 14 points (territory + prisoners) on the right side ?
White will NOT play teire to lose the game!!!CDavis7M wrote:... White will play teire so it's seki.
I think I begin to understand your point and i will show you what hurts me:CDavis7M wrote:Yes but no because White will play teire so it's seki.Gérard TAILLE wrote:Does that mean that black has 14 points (territory + prisoners) on the right side ?
It seems that Black is entitled to take the throw-in as a prisoner.
Is the concern that Black can cannot capture the White stones in the lower lower during the game (as you showed) but the White are considered dead in L&D Confirmation? Do you have this same concern for a triple ko where one side has eyes and the other doesn't? Or seki-by-hane? The Japanese Rules had many examples where stones cannot be captured during the game but are deemed dead.Gérard TAILLE wrote:Very bad surprise for white : black claims that the white groups in the upper right corner and in the bottom left corner are dead.
White should accept that their stones in the upper are weaker and less-able than Black's stones. Black can initiate and capture a portion of the stones. White cannot initiate. Weaker stones having a poorer status seems correct.Gérard TAILLE wrote: How can white accept this result seeing these two groups cannot be captured sinultaneously?
I know that a group can be considered dead though not capturable in normal play. Maybe the simpiest case is the following : The marked white stones cannot be captured in normal play, but under hypothetical play black can capture these stones by the help of the pass-for-ko rule. As a go player I consider it is a pity but it is acceptable beacause the final result is a seki (here really an anti-seki).CDavis7M wrote:Is the concern that Black can cannot capture the White stones in the lower lower during the game (as you showed) but the White are considered dead in L&D Confirmation? Do you have this same concern for a triple ko where one side has eyes and the other doesn't? Or seki-by-hane? The Japanese Rules had many examples where stones cannot be captured during the game but are deemed dead.Gérard TAILLE wrote:Very bad surprise for white : black claims that the white groups in the upper right corner and in the bottom left corner are dead.
White should accept that their stones in the upper are weaker and less-able than Black's stones. Black can initiate and capture a portion of the stones. White cannot initiate. Weaker stones having a poorer status seems correct.Gérard TAILLE wrote: How can white accept this result seeing these two groups cannot be captured sinultaneously?
And the situation is contrived -- White would not play this way if they knew.
It's not that the Japanese Rules are inconsistent with respect to this position, it's that the position is inconsistent with respect to the Japanese Rules. The entire point of the Japanese Rules is to allow the players to leave the game in an unfinished state as form of art, complementing the art of the game. The fact that a completely unrealistic position might have some apparent inconsistency in scoring rules. First this position would never happen in Japanese Go. And second, the position would never happen given the scoring rules. It is no wonder to me that rules designed for artistic purposes might have some apparent inconsistencies in non artistic positions.Gérard TAILLE wrote:Maybe I am wrong but in this kind of position it looks to me inconsistant to see two (or more) groups of stones which are prisoners that could not be capturable SIMULTANEOUSLY in normal play.
Instead, I'll show you an example of how capturable stones can be deemed alive because an uncapturable stones can be played with a different group of stones. Under some reasoning,Gérard TAILLE wrote:Can you show us another (known?) example?
is considered alive because even though can be captured, 
is uncapturable. There is no difference between this silly situation and some of the ones presented above. This shows why this understanding is not correct.
The various Asian rule sets are all good enough to work in almost all of the cases, and I think they focus on functioning and being relatively easy to understand, with the idea of a referee being there to judge just in case something unusual comes up. This is an advantage in showing how to do it in an intuitive and easy to understand fashion, while there are potential weaknesses if we assume that people will try to "break" the rule set with unusual cases. There are some people in the west who don't like that.Gérard TAILLE wrote:BTW does anybody have the opportunity to ask a japanese professional player what is the result of the game beginning with this position?