Life In 19x19

Chen Zuyuan's summary of his history research is available in English on John Fairbairn's webpage:

http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/ChenZuyuan_1.htm
http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/ChenZuyuan_2.htm

I am still reading it for the first time and will have to read it several times to understand all. One thing is sure: The text is essential for anybody interested in rules history.

John, with which meaning do you use "string" in your final draft of the translation? Does it stand for "alive group" or "independently alive group" or "chain"?

Robert

1. It's not my website. It's GoGoD's.

2. I have no idea what definitions, if any, lie behind Mr Chen's choice of words. I don't see that it matters in this case. There is not enough surviving textual information to do more than make an informed judgement, which he is supremely well qualified to do. As he has said that he doesn't like to get into tedious nitpicking, I'm not going to ask him either (we have been enjoyably discussing ancient Chinese go poems instead). His aim was not to get into a debate but to provide education and entertainment for the ordinary western go reader. He is willing to provide more, so if it is appreciated it would be worth signifying.

Please note that my introduction says that the rigorous reader is specifically referred to his long articles and book. There's plenty more there to get your teeth into.

FWIW the Chinese phrase was 一块活棋 (but this is modern Chinese). As you can see, it specifically says live group.

3. In all honesty, I couldn't answer your question anyway. I have no idea what "alive group" or "independently alive group" mean. It's not proper English.

"...group that is alive" is proper English. Is there something else "alive group" could mean?

"Independently alive group" is confusing, because you need to know what the group is independent from and in what regard. But the problem isn't that it's ungrammatical.

Common English might prefer "live group" instead of "alive group", I'd guess. When I say "alive group", I am im rules language mode because I have defined "alive" but not "live", so I use alive as a term. This language usage is independent of Chen's text though.

I am well aware that his text requires independent usage of terms derived from the historical originals rather than from present terms.

There is no need (yet) to define "alive" or "independently alive" or "group" for the sake of understanding his text. However, "string" appears to be dangerous usage here because, even after the stone scoring encore of filling in territories (aka "roads") it can happen that a group still consists of two, three or four strings (chains).

For an understanding of the text, it makes a difference whether it is "alive" or "independently alive" because group tax might have to be applied differently in "sekis".

It is easier to understand the text if Chinese to English translation difficulties can be identified first. Otherwise English-only readers face the difficulty of not knowing fur sure exactly which meaning was conveyed in the original historical findings.

My greatest other difficulty when reading the text so far is also a matter of Chinese to English translation (or maybe of Chen's difficulty to choose Chinese terms that allow unequivocal translation to Modern Rules English): at two or three places, I would understand the text more easily if "scoring" and "counting" were changed. OTOH, if these words should be chosen and translated accurately, then text interpretation will be more difficult for me.

Otherwise I am glad about the apparent accuracy of the translations and the preserving of the ancient Go terms.

hyperpape wrote:"Independently alive group" is confusing

This is a modern go term (and also a modern go rules term): Life is either independent (can be transformed to a two-eye-formation) or seki.

For an understanding of the text, it makes a difference whether it is "alive" or "independently alive" because group tax might have to be applied differently in "sekis".

There are no examples of sekis in the very ancient games that survive so we can't know (except, tentatively, by inference from Japanese rules, as Chen has done). From memory, the earliest sekis in old Chinese games are from the Qianlong era, i.e. relatively recent. Group tax applied then and the effect of the seki was interesting, but (to me) only for about 10 seconds, so I've forgotten what the effect was.

hyperpape: "All mimsy were the borogoves" is grammatical but it ain't proper English. I infer you are not used yet to Robert re-inventing English words. See above. Beware the Jabberwock, my friend.

RobertJasiek wrote:However, "string" appears to be dangerous usage here because, even after the stone scoring encore of filling in territories (aka "roads") it can happen that a group still consists of two, three or four strings (chains).

The Two Headed Dragon ( http://senseis.xmp.net/?TwoHeadedDragon ) is a case in point.

For an understanding of the text, it makes a difference whether it is "alive" or "independently alive" because group tax might have to be applied differently in "sekis".

From what I have heard, in stone scoring days in China the group tax did not change the parity of the scores. IOW, there was no 1/2 zi tax. (Perhaps I have been misinformed.) But, as we know, some sekis do change the parity, as a group with a single defective eye may need it to live.

It is easier to understand the text if Chinese to English translation difficulties can be identified first. Otherwise English-only readers face the difficulty of not knowing fur sure exactly which meaning was conveyed in the original historical findings.

Well, John gave the Chinese term, which my online-stupid translation renders as "together live chess", and John clarifies as "live group".

Unless I am mistaken, in the historical examples discussed, none of the problematic applications of the group tax arise. And it is these specific examples where the scores are apparently territory scoring with a group tax. Chen thinks that they actually were what we might now call equivalence scoring, so that stone scoring was actually in use. (BTW, I disagree. Territory scoring with a group tax makes perfect sense.)

So we need to be careful exactly what is derived from original findings versus what is Chen's guess? I have hoped that everything in the summarising text was supported by original findings (maybe in his books or journal articles).

Bill, what is your alternative proposal of a theory of ancient Japanese style scoring rules but with group tax in China?

There are simpler shapes for life with two strings:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

John: I've followed Robert's discussions of rules and strategy on L19, many of his contributions on Sensei's, and read some of his older RGG posts.

Ambiguity or lack of context seem to be the problem in this case, and neither one seems best addressed by a complaint about "proper English".

Well, since even Robert is aware of the problem ("Common English might prefer "live group" instead of "alive group", I'd guess. When I say "alive group", I am im rules language mode..." - alive is a predicate adjective not an attributive), do you really want to derail a thread over such a petty topic?

John, it is a matter of what a particular piece of language emphasises. Ordinary texts emphasise conformity to common language. Some rules research texts emphasise precision in the form of strict usage of terms and no usage of non-term words that can be confused with terms.

hyperpape, I have presumed the context of basic go terms (like "independently alive").

RobertJasiek wrote:So we need to be careful exactly what is derived from original findings versus what is Chen's guess?

Nothing is derived from the originals without guesswork. We do know that the scores are compatible with territory scoring with a group tax. We do have an example where the last dame does not affect the score. We do have an example where the text talks about each player having made the same number of moves, but White's last move does not appear in the diagram.

Bill, what is your alternative proposal of a theory of ancient Japanese style scoring rules but with group tax in China?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ End position
$$ ---------------
$$ | . O X X . . . |
$$ | . O O X X . X |
$$ | . O O X X X X |
$$ | . O X , X O O |
$$ | O O X X X O . |
$$ | O X X O X O O |
$$ | X X O O O O . |
$$ ---------------[/go]

Here is a 7x7 position where White wins by 1 point by either area or territory scoring. Each player has played 19 stones. By stone scoring, however, Black wins by 1 point. Black has a group tax of 2 points, White has a group tax of 4 points.

What about the result under no pass go with prisoner return? That is actually a form of territory scoring. That is, when only territory remains, instead of playing the game out to the bitter end, the player may stop and score the game. (There is no jigo. If the net score is 0, the player to move loses.) White has 6 points of territory and Black has 5 points of territory. However, to get the correct score we must apply the group tax. Then White has 2 points and Black has 3. Black wins by 1 point.

What does that mean under no pass go with prisoner return? It means that Black wins (barely), even if Black plays first. (In this position playing first is a disadvantage.)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Continuation
$$ ---------------
$$ | . O X X 5 1 . |
$$ | 2 O O X X 3 X |
$$ | 4 O O X X X X |
$$ | . O X , X O O |
$$ | O O X X X O . |
$$ | O X X O X O O |
$$ | X X O O O O . |
$$ ---------------[/go]

resigns. Under no pass go with prisoner return, after the score is 0 with White to play. Black wins.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Penultimate position
$$ ---------------
$$ | . O X X . . . |
$$ | . O O X X . X |
$$ | . O O X X X X |
$$ | . O X , X O O |
$$ | O O X X X O . |
$$ | O X X O X O O |
$$ | . X O O O O . |
$$ ---------------[/go]

Here is the position with 1 Black stone removed to leave a Japanese dame. Under stone scoring whoever gets the dame wins by 1 point. Under no pass go with prisoner return, aka territory scoring with a group tax, the position is worth 1*, where * is the dame. No matter who gets the dame, the score will be a 1 pt. win for Black.

Note that no pass go with prisoner return gives a good explanation for the group tax. The tax stands for moves the player cannot afford to make. (Each move is worth 1 point at the end.) It also explains why who gets the last dame does not affect the score. (It may affect who wins when the score is 0, however.)

Now, I am not claiming that no pass go with prisoner return was an older form of go, which led to territory scoring with a group tax. However, it does show that a group tax is compatible with territory scoring. If some form of no pass go was an ancestor, it would explain why go was played without a pass into the 20th century. Play did not end by passing, but by agreement (just as it would in a scorable position in no pass go). One of the questions that arose in the Segoe-Takahashi rules dispute was whether a player had a right to move or an obligation to do so.

In no pass go with prisoner return, when you run out of prisoners, do you pay a pass stone from your bowl?

I guess I need to think more carefully until I understand in general why no pass go with prisoner return gives a good explanation for the group tax and why a group tax is compatible with territory scoring. The topics are familiar but I never trust such statements until I see the proof:)

RobertJasiek wrote:In no pass go with prisoner return, when you run out of prisoners, do you pay a pass stone from your bowl?

Assuming that you have no play on the board (except a disastrous one), you resign.

I guess I need to think more carefully until I understand in general why no pass go with prisoner return gives a good explanation for the group tax and why a group tax is compatible with territory scoring. The topics are familiar but I never trust such statements until I see the proof:)

To understand the proof, you have to see that, after the dame stage, each play costs one point. That is when the players can stop and agree to the score. You also have to see that with prisoner return, playing inside your opponent's territory gains nothing except perhaps time. You also have to agree that sacrificing a live group after the dame stage gains nothing. (That may not be true in rare positions where you can reclaim the territory.)

In the example given, consider the play by no pass go with prisoner return in each territory instead of the whole board. You may verify that Black has three more moves that White in the Black territory, that White has two more moves than Black in the top left White territory, and that neither player has a move in the bottom right White territory.

John Fairbairn wrote:Well, since even Robert is aware of the problem ("Common English might prefer "live group" instead of "alive group", I'd guess. When I say "alive group", I am im rules language mode..." - alive is a predicate adjective not an attributive), do you really want to derail a thread over such a petty topic?

I thought the original reference to proper English was a petty way of brushing aside one of Robert's questions, hence my reaction. I don't see a reason to think otherwise, but you're right that it derails the thread to disagree with something like that.