Forum for Dispute Mero-Jasiek
Ing 91 rules [#2206]
Does the quoted section below lend doubt to Robert's interpretation
The stones could presumably be removed, so how can Robert claim they are not dead? Perhaps the page doesn't reflect the rules used in the tournament?
Quotation from AGA website: ![[ext]](images/extlink.gif)
http://www.usgo.org/resources/SST.html
Section B: Life and death are determined by removal, without exception; example of bent four in the corner
Stones live or die according to whether or not they can be removed: stones that can be removed are dead; stones that cannot be removed are alive. There are no exceptions whatsoever to this rule that life and death are determined by removal. This standard for life and death is objective, reasonable, and fair, and leaves no room for argument.
The phrase "stones that can be removed are dead" seems kind of ambiguous by itself, to me, because the question that comes to my mind is, "Ok, these stones CAN be removed... Are they required to be?".
Some other parts of the linked document seem to suggest that the stones have actually have to be removed:
"(1) Life and death of stones must be determined by removal, counting both stones and spaces as territory, and not by special rulings."
and
"Settling questions of like and death by actually removing the dead stones leaves no room for argument."
These statements seem to suggest that the stones should actually be removed in play.
However, another part of the document says, "Under Chinese rules, since stones and spaces are both territory and life and death can be demonstrated by actual removal, there is no need for any special rulings. A bent-four-in-the-corner can be settled through actual play, like any other position. Stones that can be removed are dead. Stones that cannot be removed are alive. As for whether or not to reinforce, that is the player's affair and he should make up his own mind; the rules should not decide for him. Reinforcing or not reinforcing is a question of skill, not a question of rules."
Which leaves me in a state of further confusion. Does this mean that whether or not the stones should be removed is up to either player? How is enforced when there is a dispute?
But if you look for the word, "dispute" in the linked document, the only thing that I see is:
"Stones live or die according to whether they can be removed. Stones that can be removed are dead; stones that cannot be removed are alive. These are the only crieria for life and death. Disputes about taking away dead stones cannot be settled by special rulings."
Which, again, has the "can be removed" wording, and not something saying that the stones "must be removed".
I guess the biggest question I have is, when these rules say that the status is determined by whether or not they "can" be removed, does this mean "can be removed in hypothetical play", or does it mean that the actual play should occur?
This rather long section about pass plays also exists.
"Pass plays are limited to use in three situations: (1) a player can place two stones on the board as a pass play to indicate that he resigns: (2) at the beginning of a handicap-play game White makes a certain number of mandatory pass plays, the number being the size of the handicap; and (3) a player passes when he has no points to contest, in which case his opponent may continue to play on one-sided neutral points. There are also rules about the states of passing: (1) When one player has no points to contest and passes, his opponent can still play. (2) When both players make one pass play each, signifying that all neutral points have been filled and there is nothing more to contest, play pauses. (3) After play pauses, if there are no disagreements when the dead stones are taken away, both players make one more pass play each to end the game"
It seems clear that there was a disagreement, so the game (according to this section) had not ended.
Yeah, that's a good point if I understand correctly.
Note that the game end ("play ends") was reached before the dispute arose. Your argument ignores this aspect.
Reading the section about passes it seems clear that the game had not ended.
Citation from the rules: "After the neutral points have been filled, both players pass and play pauses. After the dead stones have been taken away, both players pass again and play ends." We did make 4 successive passes. Whichever interpretation you choose, it must take into account this fact.
I did, you are choosing to believe that one part of the rules is more important than another to suit your preferred outcome. This is a 30kyu interpretation.
isd, we have exchanged our opinions here dozens of times. No need to do it another time without adding new information.
I agree that one of the key questions is the intended meaning of "can [be removed]". In Japanese rules, such can-phrases mean perfect hypothetical proof-play. In Ing rules, this is unlikely or at the very least it is highly unclear whether "can [be removed]" is intended to refer to perfect hypothetical play. It is even unclear whether "can" is the intended auxiliary or whether "may" was being meant.
According to my interpretation of the Ing 1991 Rules (or 1996 Rules), the only criteria for whether stones live or die is whether they can be removed. Stones can be removed exactly if they are breathless. Stones (to be understood as strings) are breathless if currently they do not have any adjacent empty intersection. (This interpretation does not explain what "unreal breaths" are.)
According to some other interpretation of the Ing 1991 Rules, "can be removed" is understood as meaning hypothetically perfect play. (This interpretation does not explain a) how "can" can be interpreted to refer to hypothetically perfect play, b) what hypothetically perfect play is in case of beasts, c) how exactly breathless is related to hypothetically perfect play, d) why before the game ending passes, i.e. during the entire alternation, stones should not also always be removed immediately according to hypothetically perfect play, e) how to interpret the rules sentence "These are the only crieria for life and death.", f) how the then contradicting rules sentence "Disputes about taking away dead stones cannot be settled by special rulings." could be interpreted at all, g) why the - in Ing rules booklets - often stated intention to avoid all Japanese style special rulings but to use the idea "No Adjudication" could be fulfilled.)
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")