Life In 19x19

Moi wrote:You could also introduce Herman's idea of double button go, where the last pass is also a button, so that it does not matter who makes the last pass.

Actually, the double button implements nicely. There are two buttons, one in which Black only gives a pass stone and one in which White only gives a pass stone. In terms of the count, the cancel out. We simply require the first player to pass to take the button where he gives a pass stone. Here is how it works.

Each player gives a pass stone when passing, except if the same player makes the first and last pass. In that case she does not give a pass stone when making the last pass.

For example, suppose that the territory score difference is 7 pts. in favor of Black, and White gets the last dame. Then Black passes, handing over a pass stone and then White passes, handing over a pass stone. Each player has taken a button, although that is not obvious. The result remains the same. Similarly, suppose that the territory score difference is 6 pts. with Black getting the last dame. Then White passes, handing over a pass stone and then Black passes, handing over a pass stone. The result remains the same.

Now suppose that we have a situation where White takes a 1 pt. ko but Black has no ko threat and no dame to play, and she passes, handing over a pass stone. Then White fills the ko and Black passes again, handing over a pass stone. Then White passes, handing over a pass stone. White gains an extra point, unlike current Japanese rules, but as both Honinbo Shusai and Go Seigen thought was right.

Hmmm. It's not so easy to get the same player to make the first and last pass, is it? How about an attempted pass fight? Black passes, handing over a pass stone. Then White plays a threat that Black must answer. After Black answers, White passes, handing over a pass stone. Then Black passes, but since he passed first, does not hand over a pass stone. White gains nothing from the attempted pass fight.

Edit: I posted a note here about komi, territory go, area go, and button go. While attempting to quote part of it I actually edited it.

As there appears to be no undo edit, I'll try to reconstruct it later.

RobertJasiek wrote:In practice, unwinding games is equally difficult for superko and Japanese style long cycle rules, because the same kind of move sequences are the basis for rules applications.

There is no need to unwind for Japanese long cycles. Both players realize there is no method to break out of cycle, and it is a draw/no result.

oren wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:In practice, unwinding games is equally difficult for superko and Japanese style long cycle rules, because the same kind of move sequences are the basis for rules applications.

There is no need to unwind for Japanese long cycles. Both players realize there is no method to break out of cycle, and it is a draw/no result.

Imagine a player realizes a cycle has occurred and claims no result, and the opponent thinks a cycle hasn't yet occurred and wants to continue (believing they can still win if they deviate from the cycle and give up the triple ko). The TD has to rewind the game to figure out who is correct.

daniel_the_smith wrote:Imagine a player realizes a cycle has occurred and claims no result, and the opponent thinks a cycle hasn't yet occurred and wants to continue (believing they can still win if they deviate from the cycle and give up the triple ko). The TD has to rewind the game to figure out who is correct.

Or you can simply keep going with the TD there. If the cycle occurs again, it should start to be obvious. I think claiming no result should be ignored in that case.

oren wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:Imagine a player realizes a cycle has occurred and claims no result, and the opponent thinks a cycle hasn't yet occurred and wants to continue (believing they can still win if they deviate from the cycle and give up the triple ko). The TD has to rewind the game to figure out who is correct.

Or you can simply keep going with the TD there. If the cycle occurs again, it should start to be obvious. I think claiming no result should be ignored in that case.

That (unfairly?) gives one side many additional chances to deviate...

oren wrote:I like AGA rules, so I have no complaints either. The biggest problem for pass stone comes from communication with people unused to it and don't speak English well. Hopefully that can be fixed for future congresses.

When I was a teenager I had pretty bad acne. (I know, it's a shocking admission from someone who later on took up go as a hobby.) I complained to the dermatologist that the medicine he was giving me didn't seem to be helping much. I'll always remember his response: "how do you know it's not working? What if I were to tell you that without it you'd be 5 times worse?" I was tempted to stop taking the medicine just to prove he was wrong, but I chickened out. I still don't know if he was blowing smoke, but I didn't want to test it.

All I can say is that every Go Congress I go to, the in-person translators seem to be working like dogs, constantly translating lectures and helping foreign professionals, organizational officials, and regular attendees get around. And I've seen them defuse a few arguments with patience and aplomb, too. That's a lot to ask from volunteers, and they don't always get thanked much. So I'd like to thank them here, for what it's worth.

These language conflicts and miscommunications might be 5 times worse without them. Maybe ten. How can we know? Well, I hope we don't test them...

But yes, printed materials would make their lives easier as well as everyone else's.

daniel_the_smith wrote:Imagine a player realizes a cycle has occurred and claims no result, and the opponent thinks a cycle hasn't yet occurred and wants to continue (believing they can still win if they deviate from the cycle and give up the triple ko). The TD has to rewind the game to figure out who is correct.

If I were writing tournament rules, I would either require both players to keep a game record, or (preferably for amateurs, IMO) I would require play to continue after a claim of a repetition of a position, and for another repetition to confirm. Yes, it gives the opponent a chance to deviate and maybe do better, but that is true if no claim is made.

I wrote:You could also introduce Herman's idea of double button go, where the last pass is also a button, so that it does not matter who makes the last pass.

----

Edit: Double button go, I should mention, is used with territory scoring. I was quoting a post that I accidentally clobbered, in which that is made clear. The double button concept allows players to play life and death out without problems using territory scoring instead of area scoring. Thanks, Herman!

----

Actually, the double button implements nicely. There are two buttons, one in which Black only gives a pass stone and one in which White only gives a pass stone. In terms of the count, they cancel out. We simply require the first player to pass to take the button where he gives a pass stone. Here is how it works.

Each player gives a pass stone when passing, except if the same player makes the first and last pass. In that case she does not give a pass stone when making the last pass.

For example, suppose that the territory score difference is 7 pts. in favor of Black, and White gets the last dame. Then Black passes, handing over a pass stone and then White passes, handing over a pass stone. Each player has taken a button, although that is not obvious. The result remains the same. Similarly, suppose that the territory score difference is 6 pts. with Black getting the last dame. Then White passes, handing over a pass stone and then Black passes, handing over a pass stone. The result remains the same.

Now suppose that we have a situation where White takes a 1 pt. ko but Black has no ko threat and no dame to play, and she passes, handing over a pass stone. Then White fills the ko and Black passes again, handing over a pass stone. Then White passes, handing over a pass stone. White gains an extra point, unlike current Japanese rules, but as both Honinbo Shusai and Go Seigen thought was right.

Hmmm. It's not so easy to get the same player to make the first and last pass, is it? How about an attempted pass fight? Black passes, handing over a pass stone. Then White plays a threat that Black must answer. After Black answers, White passes, handing over a pass stone. Then Black passes, but since he passed first, does not hand over a pass stone. White gains nothing from the attempted pass fight.

HermanHiddema wrote:

snorri wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:So if you are not referring to any general rule or principle, what is it about my comment that makes it misleading? Why is the example a red herring?

Because of this statement:

The point was that this is, IMO, a weakness of area scoring rules.

Because the common area scoring rulesets in the world are using an odd komi and related explanations later in the thread, the example isn't the best one to demonstrate a weakness, that's all. I don't think you were trying to mislead anyone, but if someone picks up that example and starts circulating it, the effect will be misleading.

Well, as I said before, the example is correct, and it is possible to embed the example as a corner in a 19x19 board and have it make a difference for any komi, odd or even. The fact that is is not likely to make a difference is not really relevant, IMO. The handling of long cycles like triple ko is considered a weakness of Japanese rules, no matter how unlikely they are to occur, and there is nothing misleading about giving an example of triple ko either.

Just to clarify: are people saying that in games without a 2-1 seki, one final play inside your own territory will never cause you to lose under Japanese rules? or that taking the last dame will never cause you to win under Chinese rules?

jts wrote:one final play inside your own territory will never cause you to lose under Japanese rules?

No. Territory scoring rules have nearest scores differing by 1 point, even if the seki parity is the same. A 0.5 win becomes a 0.5 loss by playing your final play inside your own territory.

jts wrote:Just to clarify: are people saying that in games without a 2-1 seki, one final play inside your own territory will never cause you to lose under Japanese rules? or that taking the last dame will never cause you to win under Chinese rules?

Sort of, except currently Japanese rules have 6.5 komi, and the argument was about 5.5 or 7.5 komi.

I was influential in getting this article published in the AGA E-Journal today:
http://www.usgo.org/news/2013/09/only-a-passing-matter/

xed_over wrote:I was influential in getting this article published in the AGA E-Journal today:
http://www.usgo.org/news/2013/09/only-a-passing-matter/

Good to raise awareness! I like this statement (if it can be verified as I'm not sure what "reported" would mean...?)

"The Congress game between Matthew (Zi Yang) Hu 1p (w) vs Yuhan Zhang 7d (b) (U.S. Go Congress Recap/Preview: Wednesday, August 7 8/6 EJ; click here for the game) is the first reported example since AGA rules were introduced in 1991."

snorri wrote:

xed_over wrote:I was influential in getting this article published in the AGA E-Journal today:
http://www.usgo.org/news/2013/09/only-a-passing-matter/

Good to raise awareness! I like this statement (if it can be verified as I'm not sure what "reported" would mean...?)

"The Congress game between Matthew (Zi Yang) Hu 1p (w) vs Yuhan Zhang 7d (b) (U.S. Go Congress Recap/Preview: Wednesday, August 7 8/6 EJ; click here for the game) is the first reported example since AGA rules were introduced in 1991."

It means that no one else has yet documented (or otherwise mentioned it to Terry ) any other official example where the two different counting methods could appear to reverse the winner.

In the phrase "the only reported" or "the first reported", "reported" usually means known rather than alleged.