[computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules

2008-09-15 Thread Peter Drake
I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different  
answers, so I thought I'd check here.


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? Is this one of those cases where the  
tournament director has to adjudicate?


(This is not a problem under Chinese or AGA rules.)

Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/



___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules

2008-09-15 Thread Ray Tayek

At 04:06 PM 9/15/2008, you wrote:

I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different
answers, so I thought I'd check here.

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?


iirc, if you can demonstrate that the stone is dead, then you do not 
have to actually capture it. this probably works ok except in strange 
cases like http://gobase.org/online/intergo/?query=%22mannen%20ko%22 
and http://gobase.org/online/intergo/?query=%22itte%20yose%20ko%22 
where one can argue about it or get confused.


thanks


---
vice-chair http://ocjug.org/


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


RE: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules

2008-09-15 Thread David Fotland

If I'm playing Japanese rules I would not respond to your pass by removing
the stone.  I would pass and end the game.
If we disagree on the group status, you get to play first and make it live.
If you fail to make it live, then we now agree on the status of the group,
and we restore the position to what it was when we both passed, and score
it.

In practice this rarely comes up, and when it does, is often adjudicated by
a strong player.  

A more difficult situation is when both players pass, they disagree on the
status of a group, and the group is in fact unsettled, so whoever plays fist
wins.

David

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Drake
 Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:06 PM
 To: Computer Go
 Subject: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
 
 I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different
 answers, so I thought I'd check here.
 
 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? Is this one of those cases where the
 tournament director has to adjudicate?
 
 (This is not a problem under Chinese or AGA rules.)
 
 Peter Drake
 http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
 
 
 
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


[computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules

2008-09-15 Thread Hideki Kato
Japanese rules have two procedures to stop the game and to verify 
the score (these names are my personal, not official).

In the case you mentioned, your opponent has no needs to remove the 
stones, if he/she thought the stones are dead (exactly speaking, 
he/she _can_ make the stones dead).

So, he/she simply play pass and the game ends.  After the end of 
game, the players can continue play to check the stones are really 
dead, if necessary.  This procedure does not affect the score if the 
stone are really dead.

The idea of Japanese rules is that the players have no need to remove 
any stones those are dead  at the end of game.

Hideki

Peter Drake: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different  
answers, so I thought I'd check here.

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? Is this one of those cases where the  
tournament director has to adjudicate?

(This is not a problem under Chinese or AGA rules.)

Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/



___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules

2008-09-15 Thread Michael Williams
It's a shame that such a great game has such a silly/ambiguous end-game procedure.  Can you think of any other perfect-information strategy game that comes 
anywhere near this level of ambiguity?  Go is known for it's simplicity of rules and complexity of strategy.  The Japanese scoring system, while popular, does 
not exemplify the simplicity of rules attribute.  Chinese: good.  Japanese: bad.



David Fotland wrote:

If I'm playing Japanese rules I would not respond to your pass by removing
the stone.  I would pass and end the game.
If we disagree on the group status, you get to play first and make it live.
If you fail to make it live, then we now agree on the status of the group,
and we restore the position to what it was when we both passed, and score
it.

In practice this rarely comes up, and when it does, is often adjudicated by
a strong player.  


A more difficult situation is when both players pass, they disagree on the
status of a group, and the group is in fact unsettled, so whoever plays fist
wins.

David


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Drake
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 4:06 PM
To: Computer Go
Subject: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules

I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different
answers, so I thought I'd check here.

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? Is this one of those cases where the
tournament director has to adjudicate?

(This is not a problem under Chinese or AGA rules.)

Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/



___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/



___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


[computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules

2008-09-15 Thread Dave Dyer

Japanese: bad.

I don't think this is the case at all.  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.  

The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter.

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules

2008-09-15 Thread Ross Werner

Dave Dyer wrote:

Japanese: bad.


I don't think this is the case at all.  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.  


The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter.


Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the 
best rulesets for humans.


~ Ross
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/