Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes 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. Your stubborn insistence does not cause a restart of the game (a resumption, article 9.3). It causes a confirmation phase (article 10.4), which is unwound after its result has been found. Nick 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/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different answers, so I thought I'd check here. to get a different set of different answers. :) 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. stones on the board aren't counted unless they're dead. your hopeless one stone has neither two eyes nor is a seki, so i can ignore it and we will remove it from my territory after the game is over. in fact, after you place it there, i will pass, unless you've actually caused me some danger by placing it there, in which case i will respond (and the net effect will be that we will each have placed a stone inside my territory, not affecting the outcome of the score so far). if, after we've both passed, you suggest that this clearly dead stone is in fact alive, and that all of its surrounded territory should be counted as yours, i'll point out that it doesn't surround any territory and isn't a seki, so is dead. the stones on the board that are alive dont count toward points in japanese rules, just the territory, so it matters not how many stones are on the board or if you've placed a stone inside my territory, simply that we agree on the life and death status of stones inside what we both agree *is* our territory. right? so imagine instead that you have three dead stones inside my territory and place a fourth, surrounding one point of territory, and i pass, and you place a fifth and create some intensely important ko or seki opportunity for yourself. well, then perhaps i shouldn't have passed. i was being greedy, or cocky, by taking those 3 free points, but after that, i should have been more careful. when i was first learning how to play, i would occasionally drop a stone into my opponent's territory thinking that it counted for something (that i could build life in the hopeless chasm of my opponent's territory). he'd pass. i'd drop another in. he'd pass again. basically, until he responded, i was making moves that didn't provide a real threat to him. it was only after a bit of gentle advice that i realized that i was both giving him free points and annoying the crap out of him. even an opponent who doesn't understand the concept of two eyes or seki could be persuaded according to the official procedure, which i've never seen anyone need to use in practice. if the putative opponent actually doesn't understand two eyes or seki, playing out on a separate board might be a good way to educate them without ruining the stones-in-play and creating a situation that is well-nigh impossible to undo without convincing your opponent that you're doing something sneaky to the score. of course, you could bore them to tears by writing each move down in the on-the-board after-game sequence so that they could be undone, one at a time, after life or death had been established. superko and bent four in the corner actually do require someone explaining why this is a rule, same as explaining why ko is a rule. ko because it makes the game more fun. superko because of the same thing as ko only over a longer timeframe. bent four because it's a totally crappy situation that is hard to resolve otherwise. in the case of malicious intent, a much simpler option, which i have seen exercised, is for the stronger opponent to resign and watch or start a game with someone else. it's about having fun, after all. s. ___ 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
On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:18 PM, David Fotland wrote: 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. Ah, this is the key point I was failing to grasp. I didn't realize that the moves played in the resumed game are merely virtual. 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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:18 PM, David Fotland wrote: 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. Ah, this is the key point I was failing to grasp. I didn't realize that the moves played in the resumed game are merely virtual. Your use of resumed here is confusing. Moves played in a resumption are real, they are part of the game. It is moves played in a confirmation that are virtual. Nick 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/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
In European tournaments, I have been told, when a group is claimed by one player to be a seki, and by the other player to be dead, the player who claims it is dead will receive one stone, as a prisoner, from his stubborn opponent foreach stone he plays in his own would-be- territory. If dame was filled, I see no reason why this would not be possible to implement as a cleanup phase on go-servers, like the one used for new zealand and chinese rules. Do you? It would be the human-adaption of the play-it-out-then-restore-and-count-again, that David mentioned. Best Basti Weidemyr PS: It is midnight and I am really not a rules expert, like some people here. Did I overlook something? On Sep 16, 2008, at 1:06 AM, Peter Drake 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? 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/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Basti Weidemyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In European tournaments, I have been told, when a group is claimed by one player to be a seki, and by the other player to be dead, the player who claims it is dead will receive one stone, as a prisoner, from his stubborn opponent foreach stone he plays in his own would-be- territory. I don't know what rule set is now applied in most European tournaments. France and the UK now use AGA rules (or something very similar). In these countries, what you describe will indeed happen. This is done as what I consider to be a bodge, to allow the Japanese counting method to produce the result appropriate for Chinese scoring. If Chinese rules are in use, prisoners are ignored, captured stones are just put back in the bowls, and both stones and territory are counted at the game end. This is a simpler, bodge-free, way of achieving the same effect. Nick If dame was filled, I see no reason why this would not be possible to implement as a cleanup phase on go-servers, like the one used for new zealand and chinese rules. Do you? It would be the human-adaption of the play-it-out-then-restore-and-count-again, that David mentioned. Best Basti Weidemyr PS: It is midnight and I am really not a rules expert, like some people here. Did I overlook something? On Sep 16, 2008, at 1:06 AM, Peter Drake 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? 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/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 00:00 +0200, Basti Weidemyr wrote: If dame was filled, I see no reason why this would not be possible to implement as a cleanup phase on go-servers, like the one used for new zealand and chinese rules. Do you? It would be the human-adaption of the play-it-out-then-restore-and-count-again, that David mentioned. What you have described are essentially the AGA rules, which David also mentioned. The thing is they are just the Chinese rules in disguise -- dame then becomes worth 1 point, as opposed to Japanese rules. AGA has the peculiar rule about pass stones, and that White must pass last. If you don't have the peculiar rules and try to keep the Japanese idea of dame being worth 0 points, then you get into trouble like pass fights and one-sided dame that should only be played in a dispute phase. I'm not aware of a single source that describes all these issues, but you can Google around for pass fight and Ikeda rules. Sorry to brush you off on further details, but I'm not an authoritive source, though I have gleaned enough over the years to know that Japanese rules are trouble :) -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[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/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
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
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/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
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/
