Dave Dyer wrote:
> The Japanese rules
are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the
last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct
score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation.
I shall assume that with "meaningless" you do not mean dame because,
under Japanese Rules (not to be confused with online rules) dame in
between independently-alive groups are filled, if not earlier, during
the counting procedure. So I assume that with "meaningless" you refer to
only the approach plays to "dead" stones.
100 is a great exaggeration. In practice it is more like 25.
After these preliminary notes, let me address your central remark about
"human optimization".
Neither the Japanese 1949 Rules, the World Amateur Go Championship 1979
Rules, the Japanese 1989 Rules, nor verbal Japanese-style rulesets or
their models like, e.g, the Applicable Traditional Japanese Rules
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/atj.html
are anyhow close to being a "human optimization".
There could be similar rules though that might qualify: the Simplified
Japanese Rules
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html
However, the most unfortunately, these are just a model ruleset and not
the official Japanese Rules.
Even with them, it is hard to see how they would achieve "a minimum of
extraneous manipulation" when compared with simple area scoring rules
like, e.g.,
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/simple.html
because an actual performance of the analysis is error-prone (e.g., one
may not confuse hypothetically captured stones with real prisoners).
Peter Drake wrote:
Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your
> territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed it (playing
> four stones inside your own territory, thus losing a net three points).
> If you try to pass as well, I stubbornly insist that the stone is
> alive, thus restarting the game.
What prevents this sort of abuse?
The basic answer (the opponent does not actually approach the liberties)
has already been given. Beyond that, the correct answer has to
distinguish by used ruleset and possibly tournament rulesets. I forgo
the latter and also online rulesets (because there everything is very
different from real Japanese rules).
For your actually used ruleset (one of the World Amateur Go Championship
1979 Rules, the Japanese 1989 Rules, some verbal Japanese-style
ruleset), you need to understand its game end procedures, the
definitions of life, death, territory, etc. and their application. See
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html
for quite some details (but be prepared to read a few weeks). As an
informal shortcut for the Japanese 1989 Rules,
1. end the alternation by passing
2. determine status
2.1 determine the status of your hopeless throw-in stone
2.1.1 determine if it is alive
2.1.1.1 determine if it is uncapturable
2.1.1.1.1 study some representative move-sequences on a virtual board
2.1.1.1.2 make a qualitative choice for those move-sequences
2.1.1.1.3 conclude whether it is uncapturable
2.1.1.2 determine if it is capturable-under-the-stones
2.1.1.2.1 study some representative move-sequences on a virtual board
2.1.1.2.2 make a qualitative choice for those move-sequences
2.1.1.2.3 conclude whether it is capturable-under-the-stones
2.1.1.3 [for experts only]
2.1.2 if it is either uncapturable or capturable-under-the-stones [or:
for experts only], then it is alive
2.1.3 else it is dead
2.2 [etc.: other strings, then seki-check, then territory-assignment]
3. remove the dead stones from territory not in seki
4. count
So to prevent abuse, apply the rules as well as you can! There is a
problem though: "some representative move-sequences" may be too few if
the opponent is an abuser. Then call the referee and let him make the
qualitative choices. Or, if there is none, perform all of the infinitely
many move-sequences and be happy afterwards.
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
