Life In 19x19

Cassandra wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:What about the following one:
2) In the outside border there are neither empty locations nor stones of the player.
That way it is alway true if the outside border is empty (has no locations).

My suggestion:

2) The outside border must contain neither empty locations nor stones of the player.

As it is mandatory for your concept that all (genuine) DAME on the board are occupied, it might be best to formulate a ban.

Disclaimer: For the exact formulation my German English will not be the best recommendation

Fine Thomas, agreed:

1) The inside border must contain neither empty locations nor stones of the opponent.
2) The outside border must contain neither empty locations nor stones of the player.

Thank you for your help

Gérard TAILLE wrote: Fine Thomas, agreed:

1) The inside border must contain neither empty locations nor stones of the opponent.
2) The outside border must contain neither empty locations nor stones of the player.

Thank you for your help

Yes, an elegant solution, I think.

Why is the rule called "GT territory rule" while is only relies on area ?

jmeinh wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote: Fine Thomas, agreed:

1) The inside border must contain neither empty locations nor stones of the opponent.
2) The outside border must contain neither empty locations nor stones of the player.

Thank you for your help

Yes, an elegant solution, I think.

Thank you Jmeinh.
BTW I am trying to find a better wording for the definition of an "advantageous loop". I make progress but I am still waiting for comments
As Thomas told me : "First comes the content, then the packaging"

Pio2001 wrote:Why is the rule called "GT territory rule" while is only relies on area ?

What do you mean Guillaume?

when using "GT territory rule", the count for a player is always
- the number of stones captured in normal play and
- the number of empty locations in her territory and
- twice the number of opponent stones in her territory.

The number of her stones on the board is irrelevant => it is not an area counting is it?

My updated version for the defintion of territory is the folllowing (I deleted the word "must" in my last proposal because it does not fit well in the context of all the paragraph:

A set of locations is a "territory" for a player if:
1) The inside border contains neither empty locations nor stones of the opponent.
2) The outside border contains neither empty locations nor stones of the player.
3) the set of location can be entirely covered by a "two-eye formation" even if the opponent plays first in an alternation game using normal play and the "permanently prohibited" ko (see here after)

I am still working for improving my wording for the defintion of "advantageous loop".

Let's look at a position of the J89 for which there were no agreement between the players => both players lose.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

What happen with "GT territory rule"?

Can white prove she has a territory at the top of the board?
The borders are OK; white cannot build a two eye formation on the potential territory because black will start by playing at "a" => no territory

Can black prove she has a territory covering all the board?
The (empty) borders are OK; black cannot build a two eye formation on the entire board because white will start by playing at "a" => no territory

The top part of the board is neither white nor black territory.
Black can only prove that the bottom part of the board is her territory.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Pio2001 wrote:Why is the rule called "GT territory rule" while is only relies on area ?

What do you mean Guillaume?

when using "GT territory rule", the count for a player is always
- the number of stones captured in normal play and
- the number of empty locations in her territory and
- twice the number of opponent stones in her territory.

The number of her stones on the board is irrelevant => it is not an area counting is it?

Oh, I didn't see this mentioned earlier.

The problem is that in the diagram below, according to your definition, A6 is part of Black's territory !

What you call "territory" is indeed area (everything you have marked so far in your diagrams is area), while territory is the sum of what you call "empty locations" and "opponent stones in her territory".

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ -----------------
$$ | . . . X X X . |
$$ | X X X X . X X |
$$ | O O O O 1 O O |
$$ | . . . O O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------[/go]

Also, you don't tell if ko bans are lifted when you write "even if the opponent plays first in an alternation game using normal play and the "permanently prohibited" ko".

In the above situation, in normal play, White can't recapture immediately.
But can she capture "if she plays first in an alternation game using normal play and the "permanently prohibited" ko" ?

If not, then E6 is an empty location inside Black's territory according to your definition (and is a point for Black).

Pio2001 wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Pio2001 wrote:Why is the rule called "GT territory rule" while is only relies on area ?

What do you mean Guillaume?

when using "GT territory rule", the count for a player is always
- the number of stones captured in normal play and
- the number of empty locations in her territory and
- twice the number of opponent stones in her territory.

The number of her stones on the board is irrelevant => it is not an area counting is it?

Oh, I didn't see this mentioned earlier.

The problem is that in the diagram below, according to your definition, A6 is part of Black's territory !

What you call "territory" is indeed area (everything you have marked so far in your diagrams is area), while territory is the sum of what you call "empty locations" and "opponent stones in her territory".

$$Bc
$$ -----------------
$$ | . . . X X X . |
$$ | X X X X . X X |
$$ | O O O O 1 O O |
$$ | . . . O O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ -----------------
$$ | . . . X X X . |
$$ | X X X X . X X |
$$ | O O O O 1 O O |
$$ | . . . O O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------[/go]

Also, you don't tell if ko bans are lifted when you write "even if the opponent plays first in an alternation game using normal play and the "permanently prohibited" ko".

In the above situation, in normal play, White can't recapture immediately.
But can she capture "if she plays first in an alternation game using normal play and the "permanently prohibited" ko" ?

If not, then E6 is an empty location inside Black's territory according to your definition (and is a point for Black).

No change comparing to J89 or J2003. The count of territory is the same approach and when beginning the confirmation phase all ko bans are lifted simply because the normal play stops always with two pass moves.
That way E6 is not black territory.

Yes Guillaume that is true, I see now I changed the meaning of "territory" by including its frontier. Does it really harm for a new rule to use the same word knowing that, in the idea, the count is exactly the same? In any case using instead the wording "area" will be very confusing because for a go player the word area is often associated to counting all stones on the board in the score.
Maybe you have another suggestion?
For the moment let me keep the wording "territory" and OC I am open to any other suggestion. Remember that the idea of this rule is to be as close as possible to the traditionnal japonese rule. That the reason why I did not hesitate to use (uncorrectly) the word "territory".

In any case good remark Guillaume.

If B makes mistake of passing here, won't you misscore LR corner?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Oh my goodness, it can't be true. The wolves begin to howl just because there are still holes in the packaging of a DRAFT.

Gérard TAILLE wrote: A set of locations is a "territory" for a player if:
1) The inside border contains neither empty locations nor stones of the opponent.
2) The outside border contains neither empty locations nor stones of the player.
3) the set of location can be entirely covered by a "two-eye formation" even if the opponent plays first in an alternation game using normal play and the "permanently prohibited" ko (see here after)
I am still working for improving my wording for the defintion of "advantageous loop".

It should go without saying that the fencing of the fenced in cannot be part of the fenced in.

Nevertheless, just another suggestion for improvement:

A set of locations contains a "territory" for a player if:
1) The inside border contains neither empty locations nor stones of the opponent.
2) The outside border contains neither empty locations nor stones of the player.
3) the set of location can be entirely covered by a "two-eye formation" even if the opponent plays first in an alternation game using normal play and the "permanently prohibited" ko (see here after)

jann wrote:If B makes mistake of passing here, won't you misscore LR corner?

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Good question Jann.

In normal play black should have played

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X 1 2 X 3 X |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | . O X X X X X |
$$ | 4 O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X O O . X |
$$ | X O X O O O X |
$$ | X O X O O O . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X X O 5 X 7 |
$$ | X X O O O O O |
$$ | 8 O X X X X X |
$$ | O O X O O O X |
$$ | . O X O O . X |
$$ | 6 O X O O O X |
$$ | . O X O O O . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

and black wins the game by 28 points

White happen if black passes instead?

GT territory rule:
Black cannot claim for a territory covering all the board because she is not able to kill all white stones (see sequence above)
Black can claim for the territory in the lower right corner because the borders are OK and black is able to build a two eye formation on the territory, by beginning with the above sequence.
Black cannot claim for a bigger territory because of border problem
=> black has only the territory in lower right corner => black wins by 24 points

J2003 rule:
the white group in the right corner is dead and all other groups are alive.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

The dame are only the four intersections marked with a "d"
The marked black group is alive without dame => the bottom right corner is black territory => black wins by 24 points

J89 rule:
I am not sure to be able to use the famous word "enable" correctly => I do not know the result. Maybe a J89 expert can help us?

Please tell me if it is not quite clear.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Black can claim for the territory in the lower right corner because the borders are OK and black is able to build a two eye formation on the territory, by beginning with the above sequence.

This is quite an issue, I'm pretty sure that is not territory in J89. This also means your whole approach is problematic:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

W claims a chunk of territory in the center with middle B string (the one between symmetric W groups) dead. Inner and outer borders are OK and W can, even with B starting, take pass-alive control of that part of the board and capture 5 stones. Right?

Gérard TAILLE wrote:J89 rule:
I am not sure to be able to use the famous word "enable" correctly => I do not know the result. Maybe a J89 expert can help us?

Being no "expert", I will nevertheless try to answer.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . X . . X X X |
$$ | X X W W W W W |
$$ | . W X X X X X |
$$ | . W X P P P X |
$$ | X W X P P . X |
$$ | X W X P P P X |
$$ | X W X P P P . |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

Due to the intended interpretation of "enabled", both White groups at the top and at the left edge are "alive".
White's group in the lower left corner is a compound of a temporary seki, and therefore dead. Please notice that these stones will be captured AFTER White played her "permanent new" stone at the left edge in the status confirmation for her group at the upper edge.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

All Black groups are "alive" for sure.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------+
$$ | . # ? ? # # # |
$$ | # # @ @ @ @ @ |
$$ | ? @ # # # # # |
$$ | ? @ # @ @ @ # |
$$ | # @ # @ @ ? # |
$$ | # @ # @ @ @ # |
$$ | # @ # @ @ @ ? |
$$ +---------------+[/go]

The shadowed points (= DAME) are all liberties of "alive" Black and White groups.

=> There is no territory on the entire board (which contains a large seki).

jann wrote:

Gérard TAILLE wrote:Black can claim for the territory in the lower right corner because the borders are OK and black is able to build a two eye formation on the territory, by beginning with the above sequence.

This is quite an issue, I'm pretty sure that is not territory in J89. This also means your whole approach is problematic:

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

W claims a chunk of territory in the center with middle B string (the one between symmetric W groups) dead. Inner and outer borders are OK and W can, even with B starting, take pass-alive control of that part of the board and capture 5 stones. Right?

There is NO "pass-alive" in Gérard's proposal of territory rules.