It is currently Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:30 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: rule discussion
Post #1 Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 11:44 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 896
Location: UK
Liked others: 68
Was liked: 467
Rank: 5 dan
KGS: macelee
This is being circulated in the Chinese Go community now. The game as shown below is taken from Golaxy's training data.

Attachment:
70e34ff0fc05a6a3f3feac0fc3c24bb8.png
70e34ff0fc05a6a3f3feac0fc3c24bb8.png [ 1.49 MiB | Viewed 723 times ]


This is a very special situation. The upper-left group is a 'bent four in the corner' so white is normally dead. Black would fix all the ko threats elsewhere before starting the ko at A18. Black would then take the ko first so white is hopeless.

However in this game are the two black stones at K15 and K16. White can take the two stones by playing L15 which is an absolute sente move. That means black would never be able to fix all the ko threats. So black cannot start the ko at A18.

But does that mean the two black stones, which are normally considered dead, are actually alive in this game?

Interesting challenge for many rule sets.


This post by macelee was liked by: BlindGroup
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: rule discussion
Post #2 Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 12:48 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1306
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Liked others: 184
Was liked: 582
Rank: Bel 2d KGS 3d TG 4d
KGS: Artevelde
Tygem: Knotwilg
Under any rule set where presumably dead stones can be captured so as to be removed without penalty, this situation will stand out as one where removing the stones comes with a penalty, so these two black stones are alive. Their life and death is tightly coupled with that of the stones in the corner.

Only in rule sets where removal of presmably dead stones by play is discouraged, ambiguity remains and must be resolved by particular call outs.


This post by Knotwilg was liked by: BlindGroup
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: rule discussion
Post #3 Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 3:37 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8591
Liked others: 2511
Was liked: 2962
macelee wrote:
This is being circulated in the Chinese Go community now. The game as shown below is taken from Golaxy's training data.

Attachment:
70e34ff0fc05a6a3f3feac0fc3c24bb8.png


This is a very special situation. The upper-left group is a 'bent four in the corner' so white is normally dead. Black would fix all the ko threats elsewhere before starting the ko at A18. Black would then take the ko first so white is hopeless.

However in this game are the two black stones at K15 and K16. White can take the two stones by playing L15 which is an absolute sente move. That means black would never be able to fix all the ko threats. So black cannot start the ko at A18.

But does that mean the two black stones, which are normally considered dead, are actually alive in this game?


Under AGA, Ing, and, IIUC, Chinese rules, the stones are alive. White has an unremovable ko threat, unless she captures them, in which case the Bent Four corner dies. So they are invulnerable. Under Japanese rules the Bent Four corner dies anyway, so White can and should capture the stones before play ends. I don't know about Korean rules.

Quote:
Interesting challenge for many rule sets.


Ed Lee and I discussed a similar position, probably inspired by this one, starting with this post: viewtopic.php?p=243731#p243731

I am unsure about ancient Chinese territory scoring with a group tax. ;)

_________________
There is one human race.
----------------------------------------------------

The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins


Last edited by Bill Spight on Sun May 12, 2019 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #4 Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 7:45 pm 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8563
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 322
Was liked: 1982
GD Posts: 312
Hi Bill,

Yes, you guessed correctly. :tmbup:

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: rule discussion
Post #5 Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 9:12 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 333
Liked others: 276
Was liked: 168
I was under the wrong impression that bent-four is automatically dead in the Japanese rules...

I had no idea about "unremovable ko threats"; maybe never too late to learn the rules of this game :-)

_________________
Sorin - 361points.com

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: rule discussion
Post #6 Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 11:23 pm 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 467
Liked others: 41
Was liked: 160
Bill Spight wrote:
Under Japanese the Bent Four corner dies anyway

sorin wrote:
I was under the wrong impression that bent-four is automatically dead in the Japanese rules...


These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: rule discussion
Post #7 Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 11:49 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 333
Liked others: 276
Was liked: 168
jlt wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Under Japanese the Bent Four corner dies anyway

sorin wrote:
I was under the wrong impression that bent-four is automatically dead in the Japanese rules...


These two statements seem to contradict each other.


Ah, just when I thought I learned the rules...
At least I learned about unremovable threats.

I think I got confused by the mention of unremovable ko threats at https://senseis.xmp.net/?BentFourInTheCornerIsDead
So under Japanese rules, it is always dead. Except when it isn't: if the surrounding group doesn't have two eyes, the ko has to be played.

Japanese rules are so unnecessarily complicated :-)

_________________
Sorin - 361points.com

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: rule discussion
Post #8 Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 2:10 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 134
Liked others: 26
Was liked: 89
Rank: 5 dan
sorin wrote:
I was under the wrong impression that bent-four is automatically dead in the Japanese rules...

I had no idea about "unremovable ko threats"; maybe never too late to learn the rules of this game :-)

I think that there is no rule that bent-four is automatically dead.
It was just explanation that you can capture it by removing all ko threats first, then starting ko.
And if there is "unremovable ko threat", then you can not remove it first.

But seriously, what are the odds of such situation happening in the game?
Bent four is rare, such seki even rarer, combination of two rare*rarer.
Answer could lead to explanation of why is Golaxy so good - it played millions of games...

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: rule discussion
Post #9 Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:55 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 24
Liked others: 1
Was liked: 3
Rank: 1d
Universal go server handle: iopq
Bojanic wrote:
sorin wrote:
I was under the wrong impression that bent-four is automatically dead in the Japanese rules...

I had no idea about "unremovable ko threats"; maybe never too late to learn the rules of this game :-)

I think that there is no rule that bent-four is automatically dead.
It was just explanation that you can capture it by removing all ko threats first, then starting ko.
And if there is "unremovable ko threat", then you can not remove it first.

But seriously, what are the odds of such situation happening in the game?
Bent four is rare, such seki even rarer, combination of two rare*rarer.
Answer could lead to explanation of why is Golaxy so good - it played millions of games...

Under Japanese rules, if the seki is elsewhere, it cannot be used as an unremovable ko threat because only passing is allowed in hypothetical play to remove ko restrictions, not unrelated ko threats. That's how I understand it.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group