Rule disputes involving Go Seigen

    Keywords: EndGame, Rules

The first game was played before the rules were properly codified.

Game 1: 7th and 9th July 1948 Jubango, Go Seigen versus Iwamoto Kaoru

[Diagram]
Game 1: Go Seigen (White) versus Iwamoto Kaoru (Black)  

At the end of the game, Go reminded Iwamoto that Black should fill in at a. Iwamoto said that it was not necessary because Black has more ko-threats than White. Thus, the game was judged ambiguously as "White won by 1 or 2 points". Subsequently, a temporary rule[1] was passed, saying that the player with more ko-threats automatically wins the ko, without the need to resolve the ko. As a result, another judgement was passed with "White won by 1 point".



Game 2: 9th and 10th January 1959 three game matches, Go Seigen versus Takagawa Shukaku

[Diagram]
Game 2: Go Seigen (White) versus Takagawa Shukaku (Black)  

Applying the same decision as the first game, Takagawa reminded Go that he should connect at a to avoid a ko. However, had Go connected, he would lose by half a point. Go refused, saying that White has more ko-threats than Black, and the game went into dispute for several months. Eventually, Go agreed to connect on the condition that the Nihon Ki-In fix their rules.[2]


Bill: Modern Famous Games (現代 の 名局) vol. 6, p. 218 explains Go Seigen's position. If the game with Takagawa were played under the Nihon Kiin '49 rules, White would have to protect. However, Go Seigen did not belong to the Nihon Kiin, and there was no firm agreement to play under their rules, as Takagawa assumed that they were. Go Seigen agreed with Honinbo Shusai that whether to protect should depend on how the play should go as if played under real game conditions, and so ko threats matter. The book -- Go Seigen is listed as the author, but this page may have been written by the editor -- says that Go Seigen agreed with Iwamoto in the game above.

Further discussion here.

[Diagram]
Reference: The ko  

B1 and B3 are the required moves, which results in either a seki or a ko. W4 to W8 is one possible defence, resulting in a ko.

Nick George: Sorry, I don't get it. Is the idea that if there were a ko, white would have to win it by playing an extra stone? That can't be right, because then white would just force the ko. Why should white have to fix a weakness if black can't exploit it?

Bill: The ko does not arise unless Black plays first. So White cannot just force the ko. White would come out better in a ko fight. (Modern Famous Games shows a fight where the ko gets shifted to the top left corner. White takes that ko on move 24, but Black has no ko threat.) However, if White makes the play to win this ko, that extra play amounts to making a protective play beforehand.


[1]

Bill: Temporary rule? What rule? By whom?

(A little later): I have found a [ext] Chinese web site with pages from Go Seigen's autobiography. There it states:

那时,日本棋院还没有严格的围棋规则,只根据"任何一方,当劫材多于对方的情况下,最后的劫可不落于而终局"这一暂时规定而判定成绩。局后,此局又更正为"白获一目胜"。

With the help of Babelfish I get the impression that, at the time, without a codified set of rules, the "temporary" practice was that the player with more ko threats did not have to fill the ko when there were no more dame. (This accords with the known opinion of Shusai.) Accordingly the game was adjudged as a White win by one point.

John F. I share Bill's doubts about a temporary rule. My understanding is that Iwamoto maintained that he did not have to fill the final ko because he had more ko threats than White. Unaware of any official rules, the referee (Segoe) was unable to resolve the matter. As Go had won anyway, the result was published as "White won by 1 or 2". A few days later someone discovered that a committee set up in Shusai's time had drawn up a byelaw that agreed with Iwamoto's interpretation, so the official result became W+1. The first codified Nihon Ki-in rules issued in the following year said players had to eliminate possible kos at the end of the game.

Incidentally, the existence of such byelaws should give those writers who say the Nihon Ki-in had no rules before 1949 (as in the Chinese quote above) pause for thought.

Bill: Thanks, John. :-)

[2]

Bill: Go Seigen told the Nihon Kiin to fix their rules?

(A little later): [ext] Same site, different page:

这个问题后来只好委托日本棋院审查会的人来解决了。他们根据日本棋院历来的规定,将此局判为执黑的高川半目胜。同时也承认棋院规则有不完备之处,约定尽快研究出完善规则之策。可是事隔二十五年后,直至今天,关于修改规则一事仍然如石沉大海,毫无音讯。

Babelfish was of little help, talking about horsewhips. ;-) I get the impression that the Nihon Kiin agreed to study the question of filling such final kos, but reneged on that agreement.

pwaldron: My understanding (from the Go Player's Almanac, I believe) is that the Nihon Kiin did indeed study the question, but it got stuck in committee.

Bill: Thanks, pwaldron. :-) The 2001 edition of the Go Player's Almanac states:

"After mediation by the Mainichi {newspaper}, Go accepted Takagawa's win and agreed to follow the Nihon Ki-in rules in future. In return, the Nihon Ki-in agreed to consider Go's proposal for revising the rules. (This promise was not kept for a long time, but not through bad faith. A number of attempts over the decades to make the Japanese rules more logical were thwarted by the traditionalists....)"

Harleqin: So, those "traditionalists" do not hold up ancient or at least old tradition, but a rather new interpretation.

Bill: I think it was all new. It seems like Shusai's opinion held sway while he was alive, but by the time the rules were codified, the opposite opinion won out. To talk of traditionalists in regard to these rules controversies does seem silly. However, the "make ... more logical" could refer to such things as the bent four rule, not counting territory in seki, no suicide, and so on. Those do seem to be traditional.

jfc: Obviously the problem is that Go Seigen is a westerner who demands precise definitions for everything. Perhaps if he were to take the time to study some eastern philosophy he would eventually come to appreciate the beauty of a rule set that allows a foreigner to, at different times, be on each side of the same argument and lose the argument both times! Ah, the delicious wabi sabi of pre-1949 rules!

Harleqin: While I understand your irony, I'd like to point out that Go Seigen is quite fluent in the chinese classics.

Pasky: So what do the 'current' Nihon Ki-in rules say? The 2003 rules appear quite complicated and I'm not quite able to tell whether they mandate you to fix any open ko or not. A similar position recently appeared in a [ext] dan KGS game - black would lose a point if he fixed the ko, but white had no ko threats and had to actually spend several approach moves inside black territory to create the ko; I think even if such a rule would be in effect by current Nihon Ki-in ruleset, this hopefully wouldn't be covered (and not to say that KGS Japanese rules necessarily need to follow it either).

Bill: The current Nihon Kiin rules (1989) say that life and death are settled by hypothetical play (although they do allow for reopening play). During hypothetical play a ko may not be recaptured except after a pass for that particular ko. Effectively that means that ko fights should be settled before stopping play. See Japanese Rules /Life and Death Questions for how modern Japanese rules treat that game position.

oren: A similar problem came up in game 5 of this year's Kisei title between Cho Chikun and Yamashita Keigo. A referee had to be asked whether filling the ko was necessary, but the game was decided by enough to not make it matter.

TesujiHero: Moi Confuzzed. @.@ :P wouldn't some of the Ko stones be considered dead? I mean its different from White to black's perspectives.


Rule disputes involving Go Seigen last edited by 72.179.59.145 on March 21, 2012 - 05:14
RecentChanges · StartingPoints · About
Edit page ·Search · Related · Page info · Latest diff
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
RecentChanges
StartingPoints
About
RandomPage
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Goproblems.com
Login / Prefs
Tools
Sensei's Library