Flaws of the Ing 1991 Rules (000)

7 Aufrufe
Direkt zur ersten ungelesenen Nachricht

Robert Jasiek

ungelesen,
07.05.2004, 05:50:2907.05.04
an
The Ing 1991 Rules have many flaws. This series of threads
exhibits them.

On average, the more important somebody's function is the more frequent
you hear false statements from him about the rules - that they would be
flawless or suitable for children, etc. Years ago most of the normal go
players have given up to understand more of the Ing 1991 Rules than what
is in the Simplified Ing Rules. Nevertheless, sponsor money still buries
the truth. This thread reveals it, as far as the rules of play, i.e.
Chapter 1 Rules of Competition, of the Ing 1991 Rules are concerned. The
rest of the official rules booklet is used only where it is directly
related to the rules of play.

One should note that in 1996/7 there has been a newer version of the Ing
rules. However, this has never been translated into English. Therefore
typically in the English speaking go world the Ing 1991 Rules are used
whenever official Ing rules are said to be applied. E.g., the EGF lacks
the courage to use the Simplified Ing Rules in those tournaments that
have a representative of the Ing foundation as a guest. To recall, even
then in practice the Ing 1991 Rules are applied as if they were
essentially the same as the Simplified Ing Rules. Apparently all
requests to the Ing foundation to explain the Ing 1991 Rules have never
been answered; even international reply coupons have been sent in vain.
The rules are not explained but officials insist that they are used.

The used text is that of James Davies' English translation in the rules
booklet for the Ing 1991 Rules. This zeroth thread treats only the
terms; generally, they are discussed in their order of first appearance
in the rule text.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 1:
The term "invariation" is ambiguous.

"invariation" cannot mean "same whole-board position" since the Ing 1986
or later rules have been introduced to replace superko.

To understand the term partially, part of the rules is cited:
"_Board Play_: In these laws the move is unrestricted except for
invariation, so a board play can be made on any point that does not
cause invariation through repetition of the same position or recycling.
Self-removal of a single stone, immediate removal of hot stones, and
recycling are prohibited because of invariation. Self removal of a group
of stones does not cause invariation so it is not prohibited."

Surprisingly, "repetition of the same position" is mentioned besides
"recycling", "self-removal of a single stone", and "immediate removal of
hot stones". If one regards disturbing life patterns, then it is clear
that "repetition of the same position" is not prohibited in general like
under a superko rule. Rather in the rule text about ko, one finds a
consistent usage of "repeat" associated with fighting kos and "recycle"
associated with disturbing kos. Hence one has to conclude that
"repetition of the same position" applies to fighting kos only. As will
be seen later, "fighting ko" is ambiguous. Therefore "invariation" is
ambiguous. Likewise, "distubring ko" is ambiguous. This is another
reason why "invariation" is ambiguous. The same applies to "hot stone".

There is another reason why "invariation" is ambiguous: Immediate
recapture in a basic ko within a disturbing ko is not restricted by the
rules about disturbing kos in general. Instead the Ing rules presume an
a prior principle of a basic ko rule. The only place in the rules that
could contain this is the term "invariation". However, the rules fail to
do so explicitly; they forgot to state the principle.

"variation" as the opposite of "invariation" is ambiguous likewise. The
booklet's terminology does not help with defining the terms.

**************************************************************************

Interclude:
The rules distinguish clearly between "board play" and "pass play". This
feature may be praised.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 2:
The term "repetition" is ambiguous.

This is so because "fighting ko" and the rules for it are ambiguous.
The booklet's terminology does not help.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 3:
The term "recycling" is ambiguous.

This is so because "disturbing ko" and the rules for it are ambiguous.
The booklet's terminology does not help.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 4:
The term "hot stone" is ambiguous.

This is so because "fighting ko" and the rules for it are ambiguous. The
booklet's terminology does not help.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 5:
The term "group of stones" is ambiguous.

One might guess that the terms refers to an object that consists of
stones and can have breaths together. The booklet's terminology does not
help.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 6:
The term "neutral point" is ambiguous.

The booklet's terminology does not help. An example does not provide a
definition.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 7:
The term "pause" is not defined in the rules.

The booklet's terminology defines it as "_Play pauses_ when each side
passes once, making two consecutive pass plays. [...]". Some have argued
that a definition outside the rule text itself was invalid. Clearly much
less confusion arises if definitions are in the rule text.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 8:
The term "dead" is ambiguous.

It is ambiguous because its definition depends on "can be removed",
where "removal" depends on "_Removal_: Breathless stones are taken off
the board by the player who eliminated their last breath, whether the
stones belong to that player or his opponent. This is called removal.
When the stones of both sides become breathless simultaneously, the
player removes his opponent's stones. [...]", where "breathless" depends
on "_Breathless:_ [...] Stones that have lost all their unreal breaths
are said to be breathless.", where "unreal breath" depends on "Spaces
next to stones in a life-or-death situation are called breathing points,
or breaths. These laws classify breaths according to life and death:
permanent breaths for independent life, balancing breaths for
coexistence, unreal breaths for non-life [...]", where "non-life" is
undefined. The booklet's terminology does not help.

The two standard theories are: 1) "dead" is given if stones are
breathless. 2) "dead" is given if stones could be captured, where "could
be captured" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 9:
The term "end" is ambiguous.

The rule text "After the dead stones have been taken away, both players
pass again and play ends." is ambiguous because the term "dead" is
ambiguous and the procedure for taking dead stones away is unspecified.
The terminology does not help because "_Play ends_ when each side passes
twice, making four consecutive pass plays. Play cannot resume for any
reason, so the game ends." does not clarify the relation to exactly when
dead stones might be removed if after the first two or three successive
passes a further board play occurs. One can only conclude something for
the most frequent case of no resumption and no pass play as a ko threat
(making three successive pass plays before a board play); then "taking
dead stones away" (by whichever undefined means) occurs after the first
two successive passes, however, it is still unclear whether after any
actually occurring "taking dead stones away" another two or four passes
would be necessary. Hence it is unclear exactly when and how play ends
in general, i.e. "end" is ambiguous.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 10:
The term "life-or-death situation" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 11:
The term "breath" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined term "life-or-death situation".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 12:
The term "independent life" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 13:
The term "permanent breath" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined term "independent life".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 14:
The term "coexistence" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 15:
The term "balancing breath" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined term "coexistence".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 16:
The term "non-life" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 17:
The term "unreal breath" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined term "non-life".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 18:
The term "ko life" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 19:
The term "fighting breath" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined term "fighting breath".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 20:
The term "disturbances that do not alter life and death" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 21:
The term "interchangable breath" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined term "disturbances that do not alter life
and death".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 22:
The term "breathless" is ambiguous.

It is ambiguous since it depends on the ambiguous term "unreal breath".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 23:
The term "played out as ko" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 24:
The term "fighting ko" is undefined.

It depends on the undefined term "settled" and the ambiguous terms "life
and death", "repetition", "breath".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 25:
The term "disturbing ko" is undefined.

It depends on the undefined term "settled" and the ambiguous terms "life
and death", "recycling", "interchangable breath".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 26:
The term "removal" is ambiguous.

It depends on the ambiguous "breathless". Naively, one would assume that
it must be very easy to define "removal" unequivocally (it is a case of
absence of breaths). However, the rules fail.

This throws a very dark light on the missing ability of the rules'
auhors to define terms unequivocally. They are unable. If some term at
all happens to be defined unequivocally, then it is either coincidence
or the consequence of - as Ing has said himself - decades of diligent
study, which has enabled him to define at least the terms "board play"
and "pass play" unequivocally. This tells us much about Ing's principle
ability to define rules terms: It is very restricted. This could also be
seen in the Ing 1975 Rules, which had clear rules but nevertheless were
crowded with superfluous terms about life and death.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 27:
The term "life and death" is ambiguous.

Compare flaw 8.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 28:
The term "alive" is ambiguous.

Compare flaw 8.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 29:
The term "ko stone" is ambiguous.

The describing text is: "Stones that can be repeatedly or cyclically
removed are called ko stones." As Robert Jasiek has shown, any stone on
the board can be removed in a cycle. Therefore "ko stone" is not
distinguished from "stone". However, an obvious purpose of defining "ko
stone" is to achieve the opposite.

The text's additional restriction "There are three types: single ko
stones, double ko stones, and triple ko stones." does not solve the
principle problem; it exists for small strings like for strings of any
size. (Note: Flaws in the rule aspect of this additional restriction
will be discussed in later threads.)

**************************************************************************

Flaw 30:
The term "single ko stone" is undefined.

There would be an obvious definition, of course... An example diagram is
not a general definition.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 31:
The term "double ko stones" is undefined. An example diagram is not a
general definition.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 32:
The term "triple ko stones" is undefined. An example diagram is not a
general definition.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 33:
The term "position" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 34:
The term "ko position" is undefined.

It depends on the undefined term "position" and the ambiguous term "ko
stone".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 35:
The term "outcome" / "result" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 36:
The term "settled" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 37:
The term "single hot stone" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined term "single ko stone".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 38:
The term "eternal life position" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 39:
The term "double hot stones" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined term "double ko stones".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 40:
The term "triple ko" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 41:
The term "triple hot stones" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined term "triple ko stones".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 42:
The term "twin hot stones" is ambiguous.

It depends on the undefined terms "triple ko", "single ko stone",
"double ko stones" and the ambiguous terms "hot stone", "single hot
stone".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 43:
The term "traditional ko rules" is undefined.

Such a term has nothing to do in any rule text. It may occur in
historical commentaries.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 44:
The term "start a disturbing ko" is undefined.

What is "start" here? Exactly when does it occur?

**************************************************************************

Flaw 45:
The term "disturber" is undefined.

It depends on the undefined term "start a disturbing ko".

**************************************************************************

Flaw 46:
The term "attacking" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 47:
The term "using a double ko" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 48:
The term "create a disturbing ko" is ambiguous.

What is "create" here? Exactly when does it occur?

**************************************************************************

Flaw 49:
The term "cycle" is undefined.

The terminology does not help here.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 50:
The term "disturbing" is undefined.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 51:
The term "fill in" is ambiguous.

Where shall a "fill in" occur? I.e. stones of which colour shall be
placed where?

**************************************************************************

Interclude:
"bowls with Ing's measuring frames" may deserve disrespect for its
advertisement, however, one need not call it a flaw.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 52:
The term "winning space" is ambiguous.

Exactly when is it applied? Can a "winning space" be also a "shared
space"? Do "winning spaces" exist if they can be placed neither in a
corner nor on a side, because stones may not be moved on the board?

**************************************************************************

Flaw 53:
The term "shared space" is ambiguous.

Compare flaw 52.

**************************************************************************

Flaw 54:
The term "opponent's winning space" is undefined.

Which spaces belong to which player? A definition may be obvious for
many experienced players, but the rules fail to state it.

**************************************************************************

Interclude:
It is probably a consequence of insufficient translation that "point" is
used both for "intersection" and as the score unit.

**************************************************************************

Interclude:
"compensation points", "time difference penalty points", "separate area"
are considered terms of tournament rules. Only therefore no flaws shall
be related to them.

**************************************************************************

Interclude:

"difference value" is not ambiguous because it can be derived implicitly
that the difference refers to a comparison of either player.

**************************************************************************

54 flawed terms is a rather big number for a rule text.

--
robert jasiek

@hakubi.us Neil Stevens

ungelesen,
07.05.2004, 06:28:4607.05.04
an
Robert Jasiek wrote:

> The Ing 1991 Rules have many flaws. This series of threads
> exhibits them.

Do we have someone who can read the original Chinese in the house?

--
Neil Stevens - neil @hakubi.us
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who
are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
-- Albert Einstein(?)

Robert Jasiek

ungelesen,
07.05.2004, 08:12:2407.05.04
an
On Fri, 07 May 2004 10:28:46 GMT, Neil Stevens <neil @ hakubi.us> wrote:
>Do we have someone who can read the original Chinese in the house?

Although a precise translation would be better than Davies' apparently
reasonable translation, translation is only a minor aspect of the 1991
rules. The major problem about the terms is their too short, if not
missing, description. Most terms are described only by their context in
that they are used. The context often consists of other terms. This
creates vicious circles of contexts.

--
robert jasiek

Ted S.

ungelesen,
07.05.2004, 09:08:0407.05.04
an
Somebody claiming to be Neil Stevens <neil @ hakubi.us> wrote in
news:yxJmc.173557$L31....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

> Robert Jasiek wrote:
>
>> The Ing 1991 Rules have many flaws. This series of threads exhibits
>> them.
>
> Do we have someone who can read the original Chinese in the house?

No, they can only read Chinese outside. :-p

--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
The way I see it, you raised three children who could knock out and hog-
tie a perfect stranger, you must be doing *something* right.
Marge Simpson, <http://www.snpp.com/episodes/7G01.html>

Bill Spight

ungelesen,
07.05.2004, 12:07:3807.05.04
an
Cher Robert,

> Flaw 1:
> The term "invariation" is ambiguous.
>
> "invariation" cannot mean "same whole-board position" since the Ing 1986
> or later rules have been introduced to replace superko.
>

Davies made up the word, "invariation". I think it is actually a real
word in Chinese. Maybe someone who read Chinese can help up out here.

Best,

Bill

Barry Phease

ungelesen,
07.05.2004, 19:02:2007.05.04
an
On Fri, 07 May 2004 12:12:24 +0000, Robert Jasiek wrote:

> On Fri, 07 May 2004 10:28:46 GMT, Neil Stevens <neil @ hakubi.us> wrote:
>>Do we have someone who can read the original Chinese in the house?
>
> Although a precise translation would be better than Davies' apparently
> reasonable translation, translation is only a minor aspect of the 1991
> rules.

The original chinese is the problem, not the translation. Are you sure
that Davies did the 1991 translation? AFAIK his chinese is rather
limited.

Do you have a link to the latest version of the Ing rules?

--
Barry Phease

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

Bill Spight

ungelesen,
07.05.2004, 20:56:5507.05.04
an
Dear Barry,

> Are you sure
> that Davies did the 1991 translation? AFAIK his chinese is rather
> limited.

What I heard was that Davies did a translation of the Japanese
translation.

Best,

Bill

Robert Jasiek

ungelesen,
07.05.2004, 22:21:5007.05.04
an
On Sat, 08 May 2004 11:02:20 +1200, Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz>
wrote:

>The original chinese is the problem, not the translation.

Thx.

>Are you sure
>that Davies did the 1991 translation?

IIRC, so it is stated in the English booklet.

>Do you have a link to the latest version of the Ing rules?

No, I have not seen the text. Two well known translators mentioned it to
me but said that the translation project died. I guess one should expect
changes like those from 86 to 91 or less relevant.

--
robert jasiek

Robert Jasiek

ungelesen,
07.05.2004, 22:21:5007.05.04
an
On Sat, 08 May 2004 00:56:55 GMT, Bill Spight <Xbsp...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>What I heard was that Davies did a translation of the Japanese
>translation.

This is quite possible.

--
robert jasiek

Allen antworten
Dem Autor antworten
Weiterleiten
0 neue Nachrichten