|Table of contents|
Robert, do you know where the I might find the Chinese version of the 2002 rules that were translated into English ? A quick search of the translation compared to the 2001 rules in Chinese seems to show that a single sentence section regarding sealed moves was deleted.
第二十二条 封棋: 续弈时，封局方必须按封棋的点下子。如封棋之点已有棋子时，判弃权一次，轮对方下子。 which I believe translates to something like Section 22 Sealed Move: When a game is continued, the player to move must seal the next move. If the point indicated by the sealed move is occupied, the move is ruled a pass move, the player's opponent moves next.
Does ChineseRules not provide a useful link?
The links there to the 2001 Rules of the Chinese Weiqi Association show that the rules in Chinese contain a section that is missing from the 2002 Chinese Rules translated into English and available as a PDF. It was in comparing these two that, I found a section was missing. The missing section combined with the different dates (2001 vs 2002), leads me to wonder if there might a newer version of the Chinese Rules in Chinese.
But there is also the link to the Chinese 2002 Rules in Chinese! Same problem?
Even worse. In the Hong Kong 2002 Chinese Rules, section 22 has a single statement. In the English translation, section 22 has 9 sub-sections.
A 2002 rules booklet (yellow cover) exists but... I can't read it:)
MrTenuki: I skimmed through the Hong Kong 2002 Chinese Rules, and it's pretty clear that they restructured the entire document. And indeed, the statement on what to do with sealed moves is not there anymore. Instead, the new Section 22 is on timing, and sealed moves are now mentioned in Section 14 (which simply says that tournaments that utilize sealed moves would need to develop their own specific rules for them). By the way, I would translate the sentence you listed above as follows: "Section 22 / Sealed Move: / When a game is continued, the player to move must play at the point [in the "board point" sense] of the sealed move.
Guessing that its the translation for the first sentence of section 22 "封棋: 续弈时，封局方必须按封棋的点下子。" How might you translate the second sentence "如封棋之点已有棋子时，判弃权一次，轮对方下子。"
MrTenuki: Velobici, Your translation for the second sentence is basically correct as it stands.
Agreed that the 2002 Hong Kong Chinese rules do not match the English translation. Unfortunately, as far as I can make out, the 2001 Chinese rules do not match the English translation, but seem to be missing only section 22, mentioned above. This is the reason for my question and request for a link to the source document, in Chinese, which was translated into English.
Robert, would like to suggest that we have four pages (at least) for different types of liberties with the following names: outside liberties, shared liberties, inside liberties, and approach liberties.
The first three of these terms would match the usage and meaning of the Chinese Go Terms 外气 (outside liberites)，公气 (shared liberties)， and 内气 (inside liberties) as used in the book Step by Step Weiqi Classroom volume one, pages 18 - 21.
Other liberties pages might include physical liberties and fighting liberties. What do you think of this suggestion? -- Velobici
MrTenuki: Velobici, would you mind about checking a few more sources regarding the exact definition of 内气? I've done a quick Google search, and it seems to me that Chinese sources do use the term 眼气 to exclusive describe "eye liberties" (a literal translation). However, the problem is that I've also seen eye liberties being used in the example diagrams for 内气, which should be rendered "inside liberties" again based on a literal translation. The impression I'm getting is that 眼气/eye liberties should be a subset of 内气/inside liberties rather than the exact equivalent. My guess is that "eye liberties" are used for an example of "inside liberties" is because they occur quite often (as opposed to my artificial example in the inside liberties page where each group has one inside liberty that's not an eye liberty).
Also, on second thought, part of me wonders if it would be better to leave the English term "inside liberties" as the broader term that includes both shared liberties/公气 and exclusive liberties/内气. After all, SL currently has quite a few pages that uses the term "inside liberties" in the "shared liberties" sense, and updating all of the pages on the capturing race formulas would be too much work (or at least error-prone).
RobertJasiek: I do not know about mainland Chinese liberty terms. We might need to check also Ing's usage of shared liberty; I forgot how he used it. My usage includes in particular outside, eye, exclusive, inside; physical, approach, fighting; ko, non-ko. Others use yet other terms like forced or plain. Shared I have not used sincerely yet but maybe I need to later. There might be yet other terms. Create however many pages you like... If there are different usages, then maybe all usages need to be stated.
Velobici: I checked a few more books that I have regarding 内气． The book Weiqi Rumen Yibentong introduces three common types of liberties outside, shared and inside on page 110. As far as I have been able to determine, inside liberties (内气) is always used for liberties inside an eye (已经做成的眼里边的气，成为＂内气＂．). The other books are from the series Understand Weiqi in One Month. The first volume does not appear to use a specific term to refer to liberties located inside an eye. The same is true for the Life and Death and Tesuji volumes of the series. Don't have these books in electronic form so I can't use a search function to determine this for sure. As you mentioned, there are a number of pages to modify. Perhaps we might convert the shared liberties page from an alias page to the content page and convert inside liberties from content to alias. All links would still work. Over time, as we worked on the various pages, the could be updated to match.
RobertJasiek: The usage "inside" for "in an eye" is definitely not English go terms usage when the topic is semeais. For other topics, "in an eye" is similar to "in a territory region".
MrTenuki: One option to make life easier for editors is to define the terms in the following way:
This makes things simple by keeping the English terms logical and consistent with current usage. The downside is that "non-shared internal liberties surrounded by only stones of one color" (e.g. the two points marked with a square in the current version of the inside liberties page) would not be covered by any existing term.
To solve this problem, the inside liberties term could be re-defined by including not only the more common "shared liberties" usage, but also the "non-shared liberties in between the two groups" sense as well (which is what the current page does). This would require a linguistic note that 公气 refers to the "shared liberties" sense only, and possibly a rewrite of the capturing race pages as well. (Namely, almost all instances of "inside liberties" would have to be changed to "shared liberties." Also, the rare case of non-shared internal liberties needs to be taken into account in the capturing race formulas.)
RobertJasiek: Checking, I actually do use shared liberty but assumed it to be obvious. Ok, the meaning, with which I use it, is: "inside liberty adjacent and only adjacent to both sides' essential semeai strings". Non-shared inside (not: internal; let's use "inside" consistently) liberties are not rare in practice but rather so far rare in research. They cannot be taken into account into existing formulas in a simple manner. Rather some careful research needs to be done. Maybe the step from non-shared to arbitrary combinatorial inside approach defect games is fluent.
Velobici: If I am understanding correctly, sounds like we would have pages for
We will need to review the various pages referencing inside liberties and update them as needed.
RobertJasiek: There is also the exchlusive = outside + eye.
RobertJasiek: The ban is lifted with this restriction:
They are not 'restrictions'. They are suggestions. RJ is changing the meaning of simple English words again. -Joaz Banbeck
RobertJasiek: Thank you for the clarification!
RobertJasiek: On L19, there have been speculations why I am starting new threads. The by far most important reason has been overlooked so far: to comply with "Keep posts relevant to the topic" of Forum Rule 3, i.e., I try to avoid off-topic messages. When another user posts an off-topic message (or even an off-topic meta-discussion) in a thread, then he might be violating that forum rule. Maybe he can still afford to do so because of not having received his first warning yet. I cannot afford to do so because the next warning could imply the permanent ban, so I must comply with the forum rule much more stricly. When another user, e.g., asks me an interesting and relevant but off-topic question, then I cannot answer that question in the same thread, but I must a) be unkind and not answer it or b) comply with the forum rule and be kind by answering the question in a new thread in the most appropriate forum. I wish that everybody writing something off-topic would start a new thread by himself; not only would he be complying with the forum rule but also I would not be seen as the one starting new threads. Long time ago, I predicted this imbalance between other users continuing in the same thread while I would start new threads, but more than once L19 officials have suggested or commanded to start new threads when the topic changes. Hence, now I do as required. Presumably, I should have done so already before the first warning. If I may suggest something, every user, who wishes to avoid getting a warning, might start new threads instead of writing off-topic messages in a thread. L19 appears to be different from Usenet newsgroups: in the latter, discussion flow is appreciated much and threads can be derailed frequently - in the former, administrators have a tendency to, if not prohibit all, at least restrict the extent to which off-topic messages occur.
Herman: L19 is not that different from Usenet. It welcomes discussion flow, it allows the discussion to meander and change. Tangents into related subjects are appreciated. All it asks is that these things happen within reasonable limits. 99% of its posters manage to do that just fine. They do not need to change their behaviour.
RobertJasiek: Until the ban, I thought similarly. In relation to the ban, I had to learn, that, on L19, "staying on topic" precedes discussion flow. The reasonable limits (likewise for "avoiding controversy") are subject to administrator interpretation. Therefore, now I need to be defensive in my guess of roughly where the limit is.
Herman: Actually, all you need to do is to be reasonable in your guess of roughly where the limit is. In the past, you have failed at that. You could try "more reasonable" without going all the way to "ultra-strict". Switch from 5th gear to 3rd gear, not to 1st gear.
Anonymous: Agree with Herman. L19 is much about social interaction. Rules are certainly not interpreted by letter, and feeling of situation affect interpretation a lot. You might avoid facing strict rule interpretations, if you take more relaxed and polite approach. Not every argument is worth answering in social interaction.
RobertJasiek: Regardless of how many non-administrators express some opinion on their interpretation of "reasonable", I have got stricter admin statements asking for "staying on topic" etc. than such allowing me risky guesses about "reasonable". Before the ban, I thought that the forum rules could be interpreted in a non-legalistic manner. Now I know that I need to abide by them literally.
Anonymous: I try to find ways for you to maintain access to L19. If proposals here do not feel helpfull, please just disregard them. To summarize: For me there seems to be two main approaches: You continue behaving as you do and try to comply with strict rules. Or you try to change behavior to make application of rules less strict.
RobertJasiek: Sounds tempting, but much safer for me at the moment is: everybody who is not confronted with the immediate threat of a permanent ban tries to change behavior to make application of rules less strict. The current climate is still: too many thread derailments, too many meta-discussions.
tapir: You probably should be unkind and don't answer to everything / everyone.
RobertJasiek: Sure. I have understood not only that:)