[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/
[computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Japanese rules have two procedures to stop the game and to verify the score (these names are my personal, not official). In the case you mentioned, your opponent has no needs to remove the stones, if he/she thought the stones are dead (exactly speaking, he/she _can_ make the stones dead). So, he/she simply play pass and the game ends. After the end of game, the players can continue play to check the stones are really dead, if necessary. This procedure does not affect the score if the stone are really dead. The idea of Japanese rules is that the players have no need to remove any stones those are dead at the end of game. Hideki Peter Drake: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >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/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ 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/
[computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
>Japanese: bad. I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation. The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Dave Dyer wrote: Japanese: bad. I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation. The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter. Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the best rulesets for humans. ~ Ross ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
This case is simple. You needn't capture and remove the "dead" stone actually before the game ends. If you think it's alive, you have the right to "resume" to game after "double pass" to make it alive (e.g. make two eyes). But I have to say, there are two many arbitrary "judging" rules in Japanese rule system which prevents it becoming a friendly (no matter to a human or a computer) and scientific rule. In fact, in some special cases, you would see the _huge_ result difference by Chinese and Japanese rules. There are also some defects on Chinese (or similiar Inn) rule system - e.g. how to balance the black and while, super-go... Anyway, the first, coming, international match is a good start to raise a new uniform rule. 2008/9/16 Ross Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Dave Dyer wrote: > >> Japanese: bad. >>> >> >> I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules >> are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the last 100 >> meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct score with a minimum of >> extraneous manipulation. >> The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter. >> > > Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the best > rulesets for humans. > >~ Ross > > ___ > 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/
