Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:I'm a total noob in rules discussions and in counting, so let me confirm this. Does white win by .5 under area scoring?

Under area scoring Black wins by 1.5.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc White to play
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . O . . O X . X |
$$ | O O O O O O X X O |
$$ | X X X X X O O X 2 |
$$ | . . . . X O 3 X . |
$$ | . X . . X O O X X |
$$ | X . X X X X O O 4 |
$$ | X X O O O X X O O |
$$ | O O 1 . O X . X O |
$$ | . . O O O X X X O |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

removes Black's threat. removes the ko.

Black score: 44

White score: 37 + 5.5 = 42.5

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Variation
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . O . . O X 3 B |
$$ | O O O O O O X X O |
$$ | X X X X X O O X 5 |
$$ | . . . . X O 1 X 8 |
$$ | 4 X . . X O O X X |
$$ | X . X X X X O O 2 |
$$ | X X O O O X X O O |
$$ | O O 7 . O X . X O |
$$ | . . O O O X X X O |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

takes ko @

Now that I've seen a pseudo-seki position and thought about it, I actually like this rule! It's like a local version of the triple ko rule; if neither player is willing to give in and let the other player take an advantage, the local situation is tied. So let him who is without points cast the first stone!

Are you sure that you like it that traditionally called independently alive groups are called sekis or do you like only the strategic effect that, in order to get territory, a player has to fill all adjacent dame? It would be possible to add such a rule WITHOUT calling any independently alive group a "seki".

Are you sure that you want an arcane extra rule that, provided players do fill all 2-sided dame they can fill, changes strategy of only 1 of 50,000 games? Is this more important to you than annoying all players, who have to be aware of the extra artificial rule, in the other 49,999 games?

Bill said:

The Japanese 1989 rules redefined the game of go. I do not exactly know why, but I doubt that Western criticism was high on the list.

I'm not quite sure how to take "redefined the game of go", as I don't think that was the intention. But first to get the distraction of the second part of the statement out of the way, I agree that western input on this was minor. It was at the levels of the World Amateur and tournament rules where the Japanese tried to heed the concerns of westerners, which came about mainly from westerners visiting or living in Japan, or Japanese visiting western tournaments, especially those who took it upon themselves to write (not always favourably) in the letters pages of the go magazines. At the pro level, as I recall it, the main impetus was the start of international pro tournaments, the Ing and the Fujitsu. Several Japanese pros were quite vociferous about Ing rules and wanted to champion Japanese rules. But I think there was also some overspill from the amateur scene, and possibly a reaction to it. At any rate, they realised that new packaging was required.

In the fairly high-profile edition of the 1989 rules issued by the Nihon Ki-in for its 80th anniversary, Kudo Norio 9-dan (then a Nihon Ki-in director) said there were three factors in the basic policy behind the revision. These were (his words, and I think the order is important):

1. Observance of the traditional way of playing in Japan.

2. Rationalisation and clear discriminaton of the reasoning latent within Japanese rules.

3. Pursuit of rules of go for circulation throughout the world.

Whatever may have been the intent of the people who actually drafted the revision, I think this shows clearly that the intent of those in charge was that the package was meant to describe and uphold the traditional rules (see my post above).

The same booklet also, I think, supports the view that even the pro world was aware of the different sort of things going on in the amateur world. Tagged on at the end is a long question-and-answer section on issues such as how to deal with slow players, the proper nigiri procedure, which hand to press the clock with, how to handle jigo, triple ko, etc. It includes what to do about people who try to win on the clock with silly moves. Kudo says this is a case for calling over the referee, and if he were referee he would rule the game against the perpetrator of the time suji for bad manners (but at the same time he urges players to avoid this situation by leaving five minutes for the small endgame moves). All in all, this Q-and-A section reveals quite a bit about pro views of the amateur noise about rules.

John Fairbairn wrote:Japanese visiting western tournaments, especially those who took it upon themselves to write (not always favourably)

Is there something to learn from their criticism?

1. Observance of the traditional way of playing in Japan.
2. Rationalisation and clear discriminaton of the reasoning latent within Japanese rules.

The result did not solve well the two points' conflict. For rationalization, rules theory research was not advanced far enough in 1989. A verbal-rules-like description of life and death ("if strong players / tradition consider the status to be...") was too weak for rationalization.

this shows clearly that the intent of those in charge was that the package was meant to describe and uphold the traditional rules

This can be implied also from the rules themselves. E.g., the ko-pass rule(s) obviously serve this purpose.

which hand to press the clock with,

Oh. It is the first time I hear about that in Japanese tournament rules.

if he were referee he would rule the game against the perpetrator of the time suji for bad manners

Considering the at least significant number of Japanese pro games with time-sujis, such an opinion does not appear to be universal.

this Q-and-A section reveals quite a bit about pro views of the amateur noise about rules.

Rather I think it reveals Kudo's views. Otherwise there would be no time-sujis in Japanese pro games.

RobertJasiek wrote:Considering the at least significant number of Japanese pro games with time-sujis, such an opinion does not appear to be universal.

John Fairbairn wrote: this Q-and-A section reveals quite a bit about pro views of the amateur noise about rules.

Rather I think it reveals Kudo's views. Otherwise there would be no time-sujis in Japanese pro games.

Time-sujis can be used to gain time by playing a ko threat when in byo-yomi or to make your opponent lose on time. Many more people accept the former than the latter, and I believe the former happens in Japanese professional go. Are you saying the latter "destructive" time-sujis are common as well?

About the latter I have heard nothing because profound reports on Japanese sudden death lightning tournaments are a rarity.

RobertJasiek wrote:Considering the at least significant number of Japanese pro games with time-sujis, such an opinion does not appear to be universal.

To amplify a previous post, Robert is comparing rotten apples to oranges here.

Pro "timesujis" are usually forcing moves intended to gain another byo yomi period for thinking. Inelegant, but surely Robert would not object to such play as within the rules.

Amatuer "silly movers" are taking advantage of the fact that most Japanese amatuer tournaments are sudden death. I suspect Robert could have realized this from the admonition to "leave five minutes for the small endgame moves" but he was probably too fixated in finding ways to criticize anything coming from Japan about rules.

John Fairbairn wrote:Bill said:

The Japanese 1989 rules redefined the game of go. I do not exactly know why, but I doubt that Western criticism was high on the list.

I'm not quite sure how to take "redefined the game of go", as I don't think that was the intention.

Me, either. But that was the result, in more than a trivial manner. (Obviously, all rules changes redefine the game to some extent.)

In the fairly high-profile edition of the 1989 rules issued by the Nihon Ki-in for its 80th anniversary, Kudo Norio 9-dan (then a Nihon Ki-in director) said there were three factors in the basic policy behind the revision. These were (his words, and I think the order is important):

1. Observance of the traditional way of playing in Japan.

2. Rationalisation and clear discriminaton of the reasoning latent within Japanese rules.

3. Pursuit of rules of go for circulation throughout the world.

Whatever may have been the intent of the people who actually drafted the revision, I think this shows clearly that the intent of those in charge was that the package was meant to describe and uphold the traditional rules (see my post above).

Consider the second factor: "Rationalisation and clear discrimination of the reasoning latent within Japanese rules." (Emphasis mine.) The most frequent criticism of the Japanese rules that I heard before 1989 is that they were irrational. They had a bewildering number of special rulings, the reasons for which were not obvious. Some people answered, well, the Oriental mind is not rational. But, as the second factor indicates, rationalization was a prime reason for revising the 1949 rules.

That was a difficult task for two reasons. First, there was the question of how to handle kos at the end of play. Second, there was the fact that the Japanese rules do not count points in seki.

Now, the obvious way to rationalize a rule about the status of stones or territory is to appeal to play. Why is bent four in the corner dead? Because the attacker can start a ko which he can take first. But what about ko threats? The attacker can eliminate them before starting the ko. What about unremovable ko threats? Well, there are limits to appealing to play. Other special rulings made no appeal to play at all. Why must a player fill a ko at the end, even when the opponent cannot force him to by play? No answer.

The Japanese rules makers found a very creative way to rationalize them, via virtual play with the pass for ko rule, and redefining life, death, and seki in terms of that play. Almost all of the traditional special rulings fit under that rubric. What about ko threats for the bent four ko? There are no ko threats in virtual play except passes for specific kos. Why fill a ko at the end? Because if you do not, your ko stone or stones are dead by virtual play. Very clever.

But I would not say that the new rules simply revealed what was latent. The redefinition of life, death, and seki was profound, as I have indicated in my earlier note. In addition, the new rules have produced a new anomaly, as a result of the new definition of seki.

As for factor number three, I think that the J89 rules are dead in the water in that regard. IMHO, the wave of the future for international go is Button Go.

Bill Spight wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:I'm not quite sure how to take "redefined the game of go", as I don't think that was the intention.

Me, either. But that was the result, in more than a trivial manner. (Obviously, all rules changes redefine the game to some extent.)

Not obvious.

(Now you come back and say "it is too obvious" and that's a reasonable discussion )

hyperpape wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:I'm not quite sure how to take "redefined the game of go", as I don't think that was the intention.

Me, either. But that was the result, in more than a trivial manner. (Obviously, all rules changes redefine the game to some extent.)

Not obvious.

(Now you come back and say "it is too obvious" and that's a reasonable discussion )

A game is defined by its rules.

Edit: End of discussion.

RobertJasiek wrote:Are you sure that you like it that traditionally called independently alive groups are called sekis or do you like only the strategic effect that, in order to get territory, a player has to fill all adjacent dame? It would be possible to add such a rule WITHOUT calling any independently alive group a "seki".

Are you sure that you want an arcane extra rule that, provided players do fill all 2-sided dame they can fill, changes strategy of only 1 of 50,000 games? Is this more important to you than annoying all players, who have to be aware of the extra artificial rule, in the other 49,999 games?

This fetishizes the word "seki". I don't particularly care what we call live groups which don't have points in Japanese rules; if they had come up with another name, you would be complaining about how it annoys players, who have to be aware of an artificial extra name that only crops up very rarely. But yes, it's the strategic effect that I find interesting (in the same way I find the strategic effect of the triple ko rule interesting).

Bill Spight wrote:

hyperpape wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:Me, either. But that was the result, in more than a trivial manner. (Obviously, all rules changes redefine the game to some extent.)

Not obvious.

(Now you come back and say "it is too obvious" and that's a reasonable discussion )

A game is defined by its rules.

Edit: End of discussion.

You seem to be thinking of board games, but there are others. You can make your definition correct by expressly restricting it to those games.


Where is the connexion effected between the sense of the expression "Let's play a game of go" and all the rules of the game? — Well, in the list of rules of the game, in the teaching of it, in the day-to-day practice of playing.

Oh. It is the first time I hear about that in Japanese tournament rules.

There's quite a bit you clearly haven't heard about in Japanese rules, Robert. In this case, Kudo gives guidance that seems to accord with western practice. He says that playing a move with the right hand and pressing the clock with the left is not an automatic loss (hansoku make) but an infringement of the rules (ruuru ihan), and if this arises the referee should be consulted straightaway. He does not give a specific ruling but rather goes on to point out that if there is a definite pause between move and press, he would not see that as a cause for concern. (There is, however, an implication in the question that a player who rests his left hand on the clock would be ticked off at least).

A game is defined by its rules.

The whole point of the Japanese approach is that that the rules don't define the game - a social compact allowing for judgement calls ranks higher. Just like that most civilised of games, cricket (and baseball, I'll allow, too).

On that last topic, anyone out there able and willing to give Mark and me advice on getting to the games in LA without a car? We've got San Francisco and San Diego covered, but LA seems to be more of a logistical challenge. We were staggered to see that you can't even get a train from SF to LA - two long bus journeys bookending a train seem to be required. Viability of travel determines whether or not I'll get in a day at the congress, but Mark (and GoGoD) will be there anyway.

Bill Spight wrote:
A game is defined by its rules.

Edit: End of discussion.

Wittgenstein: Philosophical investigations, paragraph 100:

But still, it isn't a game, if there is some vagueness in the rules - But does this prevent its being a game? - "Perhaps you'll call it a game, but at any rate it certainly isn't a complete game." This means: it has its impureties, and what I am interested in at the present is the pure article. - But I want to say: we misunderstand the role of the ideal in our language. That is to say: we should indeed call it a game, only we are dazzled by the ideal and therefore fail to see the actual use of the word "game" clearly.

Not that i like Wittgenstein

But i just aaded this quote to sensei's