https://www.cyberoro.com/news/news_view ... =1&cmt_n=0
이 바둑을 보던 한·중의 많은 기사가 백(강동윤)이 흑 대마를 잡은 것으로 착각했다. 사이버오로에서 해설하던 안성준 9단도 도중 “한국룰로는 백이 흑을 잡아 승리”라고 했지만 이후 규정집에 해당 형태가 있는 것을 확인한 뒤 바둑팬들에게 사과하며 “백이 흑을 잡은 것 같지만 자체 해결이 불가능한 모양이어서 무승부다.”라고 설명했다.
My translation:
Many professionals who watched mistakenly thought white (Kang Dongyoon) captured Black's group. During the game, An Seungjoon 9p also said "According to Korean rules, white captured black's group and won", but later after confirming the relevant rules apologized to Baduk fans explaining "it seems like white captured black, but it's not possible [to actually capture them] in this shape so it's no-result".
So a bunch of people who make a living playing and explaining Baduk did not understand who won a completed game. Only after looking at the rulebook did they get the right result. I don't want to argue the definition of the word dispute. But I want to dispute
the impression that the result is obvious and only a simple oversight by Kang Dongyoon. They had plenty of time to consider what was going on when White stopped playing in the gigantic dragon area and instead went back to endgame moves. Most of them were still just saying it's obvious that black is dead.
kvasir wrote:When I refer to this
translation it appears to say under article 10 that if the position is repeated it is a "draw" and this is similar to article 12 of Japanese 1989 rules. The position that you refer to is not same as in this game, the position in the game is one of those triple-ko like positions. Also 1989 is not really the rules of the game, in Japan or anywhere, for one thing the game position has the fun pass-ko cycle
Yes the Korean rules say it's a draw.
For Japanese 1989 I'm using this source:
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Japanese.html
You mention the Japanese 1989 rules "Article 12. No result". But "Life-and-Death Example 16" says "The ten white stones in the left corner are dead. The eleven white stones to the right also die through collapse of the seki." So under Japanese rules Kang would have ended the game and claimed both dragons are dead and he wins. It would not be an Article 12 No result.
I realize the position is not identical but it's the closest one. There are pictures of the Korean judge pointing to that position. So clearly they think even though the rule example is a sort of triple-ko not a quadruple-ko, they used that position to judge it.
https://www.cyberoro.com/news/news_view ... =1&cmt_n=0
"규정집의 참고도 19가 실전과 관계 있는 모양이다." "Diagram 19 is related to the game shape"
Unless someone has a source on updated Japanese rules that say otherwise?
ETA: I also don't want to imply that I think something is "wrong" with the rules and the must be fixed. Or argue the "logically" they should use rule-lawyer sets with triple-ko that a computer can easily judge etc etc. I think these rare occasions add some spice, and it's kinda fun to hash it out online.
Go is a great and elegant game, these rare situations add some flavor.
ETA2: I also don't want to imply the Koreans who got this position wrong should be embarrassed and/or how dare they not know the rules. I just wanted to highlight that the position was confusing enough that they didn't get it right without referring to the rules. Relying on your instinct is not good enough because there are logical arguments to both rulings (dead or no-result) using the logical framework of territory scoring and determining life and death "locally". The definition of local is the tricky part here.
