It should just be "white passes" because white has no move, it is not a pass for a ko in any sense. My point was that black takes unprotected ko first.jann wrote:I don't understand this. As I wrote I think W passes for the protected ko (B 1). What does it mean to pass for a ko that is not protected by pass-ko ban anyway?kvasir wrote:Black protectswith pass-ko, the other ko will be protected by the regular ko rule.
White passes forbecause he can take in neither ko shape, one protected by pass-ko and the other by regular ko rule.
The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issue ?
-
kvasir
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:29 am
- Rank: panda 5 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: kvasir
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 187 times
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
-
kvasir
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:29 am
- Rank: panda 5 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: kvasir
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 187 times
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
The idea is that neither player can automatically defend multiple kos by referring to just the pass-ko rule. If white can fight the second ko then the game is either not over or black is asking too much. In this case the game wouldn't be over because if white had a few ko threats he would start the ko (or?), so that is different from pass-ko in J89. The only extra that black gets in status confirmation is the single pass-ko ban in the bent-4, allowing positions that are regarded as end-of-game positions to be handled correctly (hopefully). Or you could say I need two pass-ko bans, or something else.
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
If the rule really forbids passing itself for the ko, the question is how can such protection be lifted? Which seems essential...
-
Gérard TAILLE
- Gosei
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:47 am
- Rank: 1d
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 57 times
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
I am a little confused.
Black protects with pass-ko, the other ko will be protected by the regular ko rule.
The only interesting move white can make with
is pass for protected ko (ko )
and then white will be able to save a great part of her stones.
That means that we need to handled two pass-for-ko in order to reach the expected japanese result (all white stones are dead).
Black protects
with pass-ko, the other ko will be protected by the regular ko rule.The only interesting move white can make with
is pass for protected ko (ko )and then white will be able to save a great part of her stones.
That means that we need to handled two pass-for-ko in order to reach the expected japanese result (all white stones are dead).
-
Gérard TAILLE
- Gosei
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:47 am
- Rank: 1d
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 57 times
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
BTW has somebody found a position in which the "no ban in double ko" rule associated to the "traditional" pass-for-ko (for each ko) contradicts the expected japanese result?
-
kvasir
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:29 am
- Rank: panda 5 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: kvasir
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 187 times
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
In that case black would take in the bent-4 shape and protect the other ko using pass-ko so white would have to pass for that one.Gérard TAILLE wrote:I am a little confused.
Black protects
The only interesting move white can make with
and then white will be able to save a great part of her stones.
That means that we need to handled two pass-for-ko in order to reach the expected japanese result (all white stones are dead).
I am failing to explain this
What I am trying to say is that you can have one pass-ko ban at a time, but you don't have to declare it ahead of time or maintain it for the next move. Basically, you can ban the recapture in one ko using the pass-ko in any position, it does not have to be declared when the ko shape is declared, the ko shape does not become ineligible for a pass-ko ban by not introducing or removing the ban. This might be more flexible then needed, but for simplicity just pick any available j89 pass-ko bans in every position as the single pass-ko ban.-
kvasir
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:29 am
- Rank: panda 5 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: kvasir
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 187 times
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Sorry, I don't understand. The ban can be lifted by passing but then you adjust the play (to end the ko that was passed for) and use your single pass-ko ban in the other/second ko. If the second ko is then passed for you finish that ko before giving any chances there.jann wrote:If the rule really forbids passing itself for the ko, the question is how can such protection be lifted? Which seems essential...
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
I think I understand the idea now. But this essentially allows preventing ko recapture for TWO turns (which is what you did in the left-right example: one turn with normal ko ban, next turn by insta-shifting the protection there, and only then can the opponent pass for it - otherwise W could save himself in that example).kvasir wrote:I am failing to explain this
I don't see how such wild idea could survive even a simple approach ko (J89 #10).
-
kvasir
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:29 am
- Rank: panda 5 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: kvasir
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 187 times
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
You mean to say there is problem that one may not be pass for a ko when it is protected by the regular ko rule? That seems valid but not really what I meant. What I meant or intended was that you could pass to lift any potential ko-ban, it is not conditioned on it being used to protect that ko at that time. That is you don't get to postpone the pass for a ko like you suggest by not protecting the ko using pass-ko.jann wrote:I think I understand the idea now. But this essentially allows preventing ko recapture for TWO turns (which is what you did in the left-right example: one turn with normal ko ban, next turn by insta-shifting the protection there, and only then can the opponent pass for it).kvasir wrote:I am failing to explain this
I don't see how such wild idea could survive even a simple approach ko (J89 #10).
I open to the suggestion that passing for an unprotected ko may create some weirdness, but maybe a pass for a ko only really happens when the ko is protected by either rule?
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Now I'm not sure again if I understand the idea well, how would this prevent the closed double ko loop for example?
-
kvasir
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:29 am
- Rank: panda 5 dan
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: kvasir
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 187 times
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
I don't think it would do anything about the double-ko cycle.jann wrote:Now I'm not sure again if I understand the idea well, how would this prevent the closed double ko loop for example?
This was a response to positions like this one were one side seems to get multiple moves in a row. Possibly, you wouldn't need to handle this kind of a double-ko like situation with a no-ban rule, because the cycle has a different cause.
=== Edit === I shouldn't have said the "cycle" has a different cause but the problem has a different cause then the cycle.
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
I have no idea since that rule is way too complicated, but one thing you may want to look at is the internal triple ko between two groups where one side has an eye and the other holds two of the three kos.Gérard TAILLE wrote:BTW has somebody found a position in which the "no ban in double ko" rule associated to the "traditional" pass-for-ko (for each ko) contradicts the expected japanese result?
-
Gérard TAILLE
- Gosei
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:47 am
- Rank: 1d
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 57 times
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
Interesting suggestion Jann. That's allow me to clarify my proposal.jann wrote:I have no idea since that rule is way too complicated, but one thing you may want to look at is the internal triple ko between two groups where one side has an eye and the other holds two of the three kos.Gérard TAILLE wrote:BTW has somebody found a position in which the "no ban in double ko" rule associated to the "traditional" pass-for-ko (for each ko) contradicts the expected japanese result?
The main idea of my proposal is to recognize a strong double ko (between a white group and a black group) and to decide that the corresponding two ko are miai ko (handled by regular ko ban). ALL other ko adjacent to these two groups are handled in confirmation phase by the "traditional" pass-for-ko.
In the position above with three ko between two groups we have only to choose two ko as being miai ko and the third one will be automatically handled by the pass-for-ko rule.
Let's assume you choose the left two ko being miai ko (handled by regular ko ban) and the third one (on the right) handled by the pass-for-ko request.
Black to play: and white is dead because two ko are banned (the left one by regular ko ban, and the right by the pass-for-ko request)
White to play: and now it is black to play and black can kill white as previously.
Note: you can easily see that it does not matter which ko you choose to be miai ko.
Maybe my wording was a little complicated (I am not an expert in wording) but I am sure any player can very easily recognize that two ko are miai ko and have to be handled accordingly.
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
If your target are those reinforcement problems, then you may want to look at their original (from Davies I think):kvasir wrote:This was a response to positions like this one were one side seems to get multiple moves in a row.
Re: The "no ban in double ko" rule to solve pass-for-ko issu
I never complain or nitpick about wordings, but you also seem to have conceptual problems here.Gérard TAILLE wrote:Maybe my wording was a little complicated (I am not an expert in wording) but I am sure any player can very easily recognize that two ko are miai ko and have to be handled accordingly.
This does not seem obvious. Above you have three overlapping double ko pairs. As you now clarified the player(s) have to choose (randomly) one of the three pairs and apply your rule for that, and at the same time they must not apply the rule for the other two (potential) pairs. In reality this is a moonshine life where the double ko pair is shifting continuously among potential pairs.That's allow me to clarify my proposal. In the position above with three ko between two groups we have only to choose two ko as being miai ko and the third one will be automatically handled by the pass-for-ko rule.