Common Sense Japanese Rules

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 2:35:55 PM9/17/03
to
To please Bantari, here is what nobody dares to admit to use:

***

The game consists of the following in order: 1) Alternation, 2) Dame
and Teire, 3) Life and Death, 4) Removals, 5) Counting.

A move is either a play or a pass.

Stones removed due to a play are added to the prisoners.

Suicide is prohibited.

The basic ko rule is applied.

During Alternation, in case of a long cycle the players may agree to
a No Result or the referee may intervene and declare a No Result.

Alternation ends with the pass that succeeds a pass.

Dame and Teire ends if the players do nothing or if they agree to
end.

During Dame and Teire, if the players agree, then some or all dame
and teire are occupied while stones without liberty are removed and
added to the prisoners. If the players disagree, then the referee
either - if he is sure - announces the winner or - if he is not sure
- declares a default jigo.

Life and Death ends if the players do nothing or if they agree to
end.

During Life and Death, if the players agree, then life and death are
announced for some or all strings. If the players disagree, then the
referee either - if he is sure - announces the winner or - if he is
not sure - declares a default jigo.

Removals ends if the players do nothing or if they agree to end.

During Removals, if the players agree, then some or all stones are
removed from the board and added to the prisoners. If the players
disagree, then the referee either - if he is sure - announces the
winner or - if he is not sure - declares a default jigo.

During counting, if the players agree, then they determine the score
and the result. If the players disagree, then the referee either -
if
he is sure - announces the winner or - if he is not sure - declares
a
default jigo.

--
robert jasiek

-

unread,
Sep 17, 2003, 2:44:45 PM9/17/03
to

Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> ***


You have written no rules for appeal, if the referee and
disagreeable player are in collaboration. Additionally, the
condition of "default jigo" might seem unsuitable when the
more appropriate result could be annulment ("no result").

- regards
- jb


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE UNITED NATIONS: SEPTEMBER 11TH 2003
http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2051599
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hans-Georg Michna

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 2:57:18 AM9/18/03
to
Robert,

wouldn't it make more sense to decide life and death
disagreements by playing them out?

After the decision has been found, the board could be restored
to the former state for counting (or the players could be
disallowed to pass during the playout and instead pay a prisoner
stone if they don't want to play on the board).

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 3:49:37 AM9/18/03
to

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> wouldn't it make more sense to decide life and death
> disagreements by playing them out?

Fine for me. I have asked for such rules years ago. It just happens
that such is not current practice for Japanese style rules. Let us
introduce play out rules today (ok, tomorrow)! Convince our
associations!

--
robert jasiek

Denis Feldmann

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 11:03:53 AM9/18/03
to

What?? This mistake from you, Robert, of all people? How would play-out
rules solve for "two dead, one capturable" case, for instance? Or give "bent
four" dead in all Japanese cases where it should be? Not to mention the
interference with double-ko (moonshine life, say)...


Robert Jasiek

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 12:57:41 PM9/18/03
to

Denis Feldmann wrote:
> What?? This mistake from you, Robert, of all people?

Which mistake?

> How would play-out
> rules solve for "two dead, one capturable" case, for instance? Or give "bent
> four" dead in all Japanese cases where it should be? Not to mention the
> interference with double-ko (moonshine life, say)...

I have not claimed that play-out rules would give the same score
as the Japanese 1989 Rules in all arcane and all insufficiently
played cases. Nor have I claimed that suitable Territory Scoring
rules with a one sequence play-out are already known.

With "two dead, one capturable" I guess that you mean:

# O . # O .
. # # # O O
# # O O O .

intersections

b c d # O .
a # # # O O
# # O O O .

# to play during the alternating-sequence:
#[dpp]O[ppp].
Area Score = 2 + 1 + 3 - 2 - 0 - 2 = 6 - 4 = 2.
Derived Territory Score = 2 - 1 = 1.
Intuitive Territory Score = 1.

This is not so bad as you say!

***

What do you mean by "'bent four' dead in all Japanese cases where
it should be"? The official J1989 Rules commentary on the
official examples 16-18 in part II is plain nonsense. The J1989
Rules do not have any rule that let stones die because of a
seki collapse. Even worse, some uncapturable strings in the
diagrams are called dead in the commentaries.

J1989 Rules are not J1949 Rules or WAGC79 Rules that had
explicit rules that the shown examples of bent-4-in-the-corner
were dead regardless of the rest of the board.

***

Why care about double ko sekis if the aim is to write useful
Japanese style rules instead of their best possible
interpretation? Play-out rules want to be useful and not the
most exact interpretation. Double ko sekis occur in maybe
every 20,000th game. I have not had any game with some!

--
robert jasiek

Denis Feldmann

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 1:29:48 PM9/18/03
to
Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Denis Feldmann wrote:
>> What?? This mistake from you, Robert, of all people?
>
> Which mistake?
>
>> How would play-out
>> rules solve for "two dead, one capturable" case, for instance? Or
>> give "bent four" dead in all Japanese cases where it should be? Not
>> to mention the interference with double-ko (moonshine life, say)...
>
> I have not claimed that play-out rules would give the same score
> as the Japanese 1989 Rules in all arcane and all insufficiently
> played cases. Nor have I claimed that suitable Territory Scoring
> rules with a one sequence play-out are already known.
>
> With "two dead, one capturable" I guess that you mean:
>
> # O . # O .
> . # # # O O
> # # O O O .
>
> intersections

No, I mean situations where 2 groups are deas, i.e capturable even if they
have fist move, but capturing one make the other live

Then, playing it out *as a proof* implies both will be indeed declared dead,
but...

I had one ;-) But I agree moonshine life is not really important in
practice...


Barry Phease

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 5:13:15 PM9/18/03
to
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:29:48 +0200, Denis Feldmann wrote:

> Robert Jasiek wrote:

> No, I mean situations where 2 groups are deas, i.e capturable even if they
> have fist move, but capturing one make the other live
>
> Then, playing it out *as a proof* implies both will be indeed declared dead,
> but...

Anti-seki is hard for any rules. You could say both dead, but then how do
you count the empty space? Easiest is to call them a seki (how to word
the rules in this case?).

--
Barry Phease

mailto://bar...@es.co.nz
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp

Denis Feldmann

unread,
Sep 18, 2003, 11:37:37 PM9/18/03
to
Barry Phease wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:29:48 +0200, Denis Feldmann wrote:
>
>> Robert Jasiek wrote:
>
>> No, I mean situations where 2 groups are deas, i.e capturable even
>> if they have fist move, but capturing one make the other live
>>
>> Then, playing it out *as a proof* implies both will be indeed
>> declared dead, but...
>
> Anti-seki is hard for any rules. You could say both dead, but then
> how do you count the empty space? Easiest is to call them a seki
> (how to word the rules in this case?).

No, no, no: this is not anti seki; only situations like a pseudoseki
beteween 3 groups : A | B | C, with one mutual liberty between A and B, one
between B and C, A and C black , B white, B has a one-point eye, A and C
have 4-space big eyes almost filled up...

>
> mailto://bar...@es.co.nz
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp


Barry Phease

unread,
Sep 19, 2003, 4:03:37 PM9/19/03
to
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 05:37:37 +0200, Denis Feldmann wrote:

> Barry Phease wrote:

>> Anti-seki is hard for any rules. You could say both dead, but then
>> how do you count the empty space? Easiest is to call them a seki
>> (how to word the rules in this case?).
>
> No, no, no: this is not anti seki; only situations like a pseudoseki
> beteween 3 groups : A | B | C, with one mutual liberty between A and B, one
> between B and C, A and C black , B white, B has a one-point eye, A and C
> have 4-space big eyes almost filled up...

IC, Yes this is hard for rules too. As you say either group can be
killed, but only one. I don't think that any rules can handle this
acceptably unless the players plya it out.

Bill Spight

unread,
Sep 19, 2003, 5:41:01 PM9/19/03
to
Dear Barry,

> > No, no, no: this is not anti seki; only situations like a pseudoseki
> > beteween 3 groups : A | B | C, with one mutual liberty between A and B, one
> > between B and C, A and C black , B white, B has a one-point eye, A and C
> > have 4-space big eyes almost filled up...
>
> IC, Yes this is hard for rules too. As you say either group can be
> killed, but only one. I don't think that any rules can handle this

> acceptably unless the players play it out.

I agree.

Best,

Bill

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages