Life In 19x19

Javaness2 wrote:I sometimes wonder if I could ask the BGA to redact every copy of the British Go Journal they placed online with an article I penguined in it. Everything I submitted was done on the understanding that it would be to their own limited audience and confined to the printed journal. Then they all went online ...

I know you're being facetious, but I'd be surprised if allowing them to publish didn't implicitly grant them rights to republish in different forums.

prokofiev wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:The seki is eyeless. If you talk about eyes needed for life not counting, no points would be "taxed". But the group tax in stone scoring did apply to seki. Even though the Black stones in the seki make up two strings that cannot be connected, Black is considered to have only one group in seki. Since each player has one group in the seki, the group tax cancels out. That's a strange way to do it, but it works.

I agree it makes sense not to tax seki groups from a stone counting perspective, just as it makes sense not to count eyes in seki (Chen mentions this later, though without giving an explicit game example).

You mention cancelling group taxes, though. There's none of that here. Chen get agreement of the final black and white scores (not just their difference) with the source by taxing black for two groups and white for three (the numbers of non-seki groups).

What I was talking about was the use of the group tax as we know it under modern stone scoring. Ancient scoring, as indicated by the Dunhuang scroll, made no explicit mention of a group tax. The players actually, or in effect, play until neither side is willing to make a play (both filled to capacity). With an independently live group, that means playing on until there are two one-point eyes. With a seki, it means playing on until each group has zero or one eye, depending upon circumstances. (I think that J. F. should not have used the English "string", since a living group may consist of two strings, even after "filling to capacity".) Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.

Now in practice, humans would quickly see that they did not actually have to play the game out to capacity, they could count territory as equivalent to stones as long as they remembered not to count the eyes necessary for life. Therein, I think, lies the origin of the group tax. Applying it to seki was a later refinement, if we can call it that.

It is a bit facetious, yes Still a more realistic case was when I wrote an article for website A which then turned up in e-journal B. I felt that was naughty!
Almost the same thing happened to some reports I wrote...

hyperpape wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:I sometimes wonder if I could ask the BGA to redact every copy of the British Go Journal they placed online with an article I penguined in it. Everything I submitted was done on the understanding that it would be to their own limited audience and confined to the printed journal. Then they all went online ...

I know you're being facetious, but I'd be surprised if allowing them to publish didn't implicitly grant them rights to republish in different forums.

[quote="Javaness2"]It is a bit facetious, yes Still a more realistic case was when I wrote an article for website A which then turned up in e-journal B. I felt that was naughty!
Almost the same thing happened to some reports I wrote...

What, they get cited by the Ig Nobel committee as also-rans?

Best wishes.

Ig-nobody :p When something gets additionally published elsewhere, as the author, it is quite distasteful to me. Still, it's hard to care much over the work.

Bill Spight wrote:Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.

Interesting. Would modern stone scorers have taxed white twice in a seki like the following? White is quite a bit more disconnected here than black was in Jia Xuan's game.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ --------------------
$$ | . O . X . O . O X .
$$ | O O O X O O O O X .
$$ | X X X O X X X X X .
$$ | . . X O O O O O . ,
$$ | . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Bill Spight wrote:Now in practice, humans would quickly see that they did not actually have to play the game out to capacity, they could count territory as equivalent to stones as long as they remembered not to count the eyes necessary for life. Therein, I think, lies the origin of the group tax. Applying it to seki was a later refinement, if we can call it that.

I agree this all makes sense if coming from stone scoring ("your score is the number of stones you have on the board"). Stone scoring seems quite elegant from a simplicity of rules standpoint; even area scoring needs extra definitions. I wonder how much strategy would differ from current go with the small extra incentive to stay connected and cut your opponent.

I always wondered how much strategy would differ using the Tibetan ko rule, but the trouble with these thoughts is, nobody ever tries to see.

prokofiev wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.

Interesting. Would modern stone scorers have taxed white twice in a seki like the following? White is quite a bit more disconnected here than black was in Jia Xuan's game.

$$B
$$ --------------------
$$ | . O . X . O . O X .
$$ | O O O X O O O O X .
$$ | X X X O X X X X X .
$$ | . . X O O O O O . ,
$$ | . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ --------------------
$$ | . O . X . O . O X .
$$ | O O O X O O O O X .
$$ | X X X O X X X X X .
$$ | . . X O O O O O . ,
$$ | . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Bill Spight wrote:Now in practice, humans would quickly see that they did not actually have to play the game out to capacity, they could count territory as equivalent to stones as long as they remembered not to count the eyes necessary for life. Therein, I think, lies the origin of the group tax. Applying it to seki was a later refinement, if we can call it that.

I agree this all makes sense if coming from stone scoring ("your score is the number of stones you have on the board"). Stone scoring seems quite elegant from a simplicity of rules standpoint; even area scoring needs extra definitions. I wonder how much strategy would differ from current go with the small extra incentive to stay connected and cut your opponent.

Your undertand is quite right!!!!You said what I want to express by my poor English.

Note : Group tax is just a simplification technique of counting stone invented in a certain period.

ANd by the way ,all the go game termes in Chinese are very interesting ,very easy to understand,very visualized for starters ！！！！They have their own meaning in Chinese in our life like seki ==both alive.

like air（liberty），it's exact;.it's easier to understand live and dead stone ,and others.it;s the fountainhead of the go game,it has the same signification as it in GongFu ,Chinese medecine .it's a very important concept in Chinese culture.
Group tax ,i think ,is called return(repay) stone better according to the scoring process in ancient

prokofiev wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.

Interesting. Would modern stone scorers have taxed white twice in a seki like the following? White is quite a bit more disconnected here than black was in Jia Xuan's game.

$$B
$$ --------------------
$$ | . O . X . O . O X .
$$ | O O O X O O O O X .
$$ | X X X O X X X X X .
$$ | . . X O O O O O . ,
$$ | . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ --------------------
$$ | . O . X . O . O X .
$$ | O O O X O O O O X .
$$ | X X X O X X X X X .
$$ | . . X O O O O O . ,
$$ | . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

They would have applied the tax to the two White groups and one Black group. Bizarre, but it worked.

Bill Spight wrote: They would have applied the tax to the two White groups and one Black group. Bizarre, but it worked.

Ah, but they also would have given white two points of territory, so that the local score comes out to zero?

Group tax proucess：

at the end of the game,after scoring by Chinese rule ,you must compare the groups the each player has .when one side (A player)has more groups than other (B player),A gives(subtract) a number of stones he has scored to the other player B ,the number is how many groups A has more than B.

Bill Spight wrote:

prokofiev wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:Chen did not apply the group tax to the seki, and I agree. But modern stone scorers in the early 20th century would have, with the same result.

Interesting. Would modern stone scorers have taxed white twice in a seki like the following? White is quite a bit more disconnected here than black was in Jia Xuan's game.

$$B
$$ --------------------
$$ | . O . X . O . O X .
$$ | O O O X O O O O X .
$$ | X X X O X X X X X .
$$ | . . X O O O O O . ,
$$ | . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ --------------------
$$ | . O . X . O . O X .
$$ | O O O X O O O O X .
$$ | X X X O X X X X X .
$$ | . . X O O O O O . ,
$$ | . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

They would have applied the tax to the two White groups and one Black group. Bizarre, but it worked.

All right then, let's up the ante (=

How about this one?

(Position taken from SL - Strange Sekis)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . O O . X X . O O . |
$$ | X X O X O . X O X X |
$$ | X X O X O O X O X X |
$$ | O O O X X X X O O O |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

Does B get charged for 4 groups or 3?

Go ahead and specify the count under the different alternatives and state which one you prefer. There is no such thing as a "right" answer, right? It is just that under rule set A the result is X while under rule set B the result is Y. So... what is the point?

Mef wrote:All right then, let's up the ante (=

How about this one?

(Position taken from SL - Strange Sekis)

$$B
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . O O . X X . O O . |
$$ | X X O X O . X O X X |
$$ | X X O X O O X O X X |
$$ | O O O X X X X O O O |
$$ ---------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . O O . X X . O O . |
$$ | X X O X O . X O X X |
$$ | X X O X O O X O X X |
$$ | O O O X X X X O O O |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

Does B get charged for 4 groups or 3?

Three.

I would not particularly be surprised if some strange seki made the modern group tax give a different answer from not counting eye points necessary for life.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ --------------
$$ | . X X O . . .
$$ | X . X O . . .
$$ | X X O . O . .
$$ | O O O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

Does Black have one group or two?