In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Dailey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:15 -0700, Ben Shoemaker wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I really can't see in here what we do if I say my stones are alive
> and you say they're dead, I request resuming the game, you pass
> (because you don't want to fill in your own territory), and then I
> pass. The game has ended again, and we still have a dispute.
The point of the "continuation" play is to prove the "alive" or
"dead" claim. Each side must play out the position until both sides
agree on the state of the stones. This may require playing until the
stones have two eyes and are unconditionally alive or else playing
until the stones are captured and removed from the board. The point
of this "continuation" is not to arrive at a new final board position
and score, but to reach an agreement about the status of stones in the
original final board position. If the stones were actually
"unsettled" this can get quite messy.
That's what really irks me about the playout rule. First of all, the
idea is that the play-out has the ONLY purpose to settle the dispute and
when it's finished you score the original position. I have some
questions about that:
1. What if you still disagree and claim that you simply mis-played the
play-out? I have been completely assured that this exercise is not
considered part of the game, only part of the SCORING of the game.
Therefore, if either player thinks he misplayed the play-out, it should
be replayed until everyone is satisfied, right? The goal here is not
to see who is better, but to find the truth.
This is a good question.
There are two views, both seem to me entirely reasonable:
1.) The confirmation is done by a player strong enough to know, or to
be able to find out, the true status of the disputed group or groups. If
no such player is available, it is investigated by the players
themselves, with assistance if available, and taking moves back and
trying various lines until they are sure of the answer.
2.) The confirmation is done by the players themselves, without
taking moves back, and possibly with the game clock running.
I have done my best to find an authoritative opinion on which is
correct, but failed. If you ever find one, I hope you will let me know.
A problem with (2) is that the rules for the confirmation phase are
different from the rules for the game itself, and have the "pass-for-ko"
rule. Few dan players know of the existence of the "pass-for-ko" rule,
and even fewer understand it, so it is unreasonable to expect weak kyu
players to apply it correctly. However my attempts to decrypt James
Davies' English translation of the 1989 Japanese rules tend to favour
(2).
2. Before the play-out phase, do you calculate both possible scores
then go by the one that the play-outs indicate was correct? Or do you
try to reconstruct the original position? What if several groups are
in question or there are subtle interactions? How do you integrate
that back into the score from the original disputed position?
There shouldn't be any subtle interactions. A group is dead if it can
be captured [A]. "Can be captured" means, with the attacker playing
first. So it is possible for two adjacent groups both to be dead. When
there are adjacent dead groups, both (all) are left on the board, and
can play no part in surrounding territory.
It seems real messy to me to view this as part of the scoring procedure
and not part of the game.
For the 1989 Japanese rules as translated by Davies, and the official
commentary on them likewise translated, and some unofficial remarks by a
few European players, see http://www.weddslist.com/j1989/index.html
Nick
[A] without the capture enabling the play of a new uncapturable stone;
but that exception does not affect the point.
- Don
Ben.
_______________________________________________
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/
