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/
