Japanese Rules/ Discussion

Sub-page of JapaneseRules

DougRidgway This page seriously needs editing. I'd suggest something as follows:

  • basic intro to japanese style style rulesets, so that people linked here from elsewhere can quickly get a clue, and get back to what they were doing
  • links to japanese rule texts which are in use
  • brief summary of some of the issues associated with japanese style rules, perhaps in the form of a history of their evolution
  • and only then, with context established, get into debates, proposals, commentaries, etc. Perhaps as subpages.

The top level should read like an encyclopedia article.


RobertJasiek: Do you[2] have the slightest idea what inventing the Japanese 2003 Rules means? In 1993 I started the attempt to understand the Japanese 1989 Rules. Since 1997 I have made some more serious such attempts. Since 1996 I have been a go rules researcher. From the beginning of July 2003 to May 2004 I worked on the Japanese 2003 Rules as a full time hobby. In June 2004 I created the New Amateur-Japanese Rules. After centuries of doubtful usage, Japanese rules are explained finally. Surprisingly, while the model for professional-Japanese rules is about as complicated as expected, the model for amateur-Japanese rules is even applicable.

The [ext] New Amateur-Japanese Rules are a very good[3] explanation of post-1949 amateur-Japanese rules, should become the universal ruleset for Japanese style amateur rules, and in particular should be used by the EGF and the IGF.

TJ: As I understand it, current Japanese rules are to play out any situation in dispute on a seperate board, with the only thing that matters being the life and death of the group in question. In other words, the only valid ko threat would be one local to the group in question. If the stones die, and are not replaced with live ones, the group is dead, and removed from the original board, and scoring continues. With the dead bent four, this would mean that the killer starts the ko, and any ko threats remaining, removable or non-removable, are irrelevant, and the dead bent four will be "found" to be dead. In most cases, both sides know dead bent four, so the dispute phase can be skipped, there being no dispute if both sides agree it's dead.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be difficult to understand, so I think I'm missing something here...could someone please tell me what I'm missing?

Robert Pauli: The one who wants to prove death may start, right (and causing the trouble), but the target stone, besides preventing capture at all, not only may prove life by replacing itself with an uncapturable stone (and if this is in a recursive fashion is in doubt), but this compensational stone may pop up "anywhere", with some restrictions . . . (skipped). For instance:

[Diagram]



The two black stones at the left are not dead. Black's compensation would take place in the center.


I am reminded of the following quotation from Tony Hoare:

"There are two ways of constructing a piece of software: One is to make it so simple that there are obviously no errors, and the other is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious errors."

--Matthew Woodcraft


Possible outcomes for games played under Japanese rules include at least the following:

  • Black wins, White loses
  • White wins, Black loses
  • Jigo
  • No result
  • Both players lose
  • White wins, but Black does not lose
Bill: I do not believe that the last is possible under the current rules, and occurred only once before Japanese rules were codified.

Matt Noonan: I've never heard of this before! Can somebody give a pointer to more information about "White wins, black doesn't lose?"

BobMcGuigan One such game occurred in 1928, I think, in a ranking tournament game between Segoe and ? (I can't remember the other player's name). It involved a 10,000 year ko which didn't get resolved. The referee decided the outcome of the game was that White won but Black didn't lose. It's an historical oddity that was a factor in prompting the development of official rules.

Charles Matthews See the ten-thousand year ko page for more about the Segoe-Takahashi game, and a link to John Fairbairn's article about it.

Fwiffo: Under what circumstances do both players lose?

[Diagram]

Both lose

Bill: Suppose that play was suspended with this position on the board, and White was ahead by 2.5 points on the rest of the board. If Black requests a resumption, White can make seki and win, while if White requests a resumption, Black can make 5 points of territory and win. Since neither player can win by resuming play, both lose.

Later: Hmmm. I see that this is a bad example. White's corner stone is dead, so the corner is scored as 6 points for Black, anyway. White would gain a point by requesting a resumption. However, I think I'll leave it up. I think it makes the point clearly, anyway, and also shows the difficulties of interpreting the Japanese '89 rules. ;-)

Rakshasa: Actually, it doesn't make the point clear. Under what circumstances would white not want to play for seki? If it is like it is now, then both players ended the game too early.

Bill: Yes, they stopped play too early. That's what gives rise to this kind of problem that the Japanese '89 rules address. If play stopped too early and the players discover that but whoever requests a resumption would lose, the rule seems to say that both lose. However, the wording is obscure.

Here is an example from the official commentary.

[Diagram]

Both lose

Black can kill White with a play at a, or White can live with a play there. Since this is a huge swing, it probably affects who wins or loses. Say that it does. If White requests a resumption, Black kills, while if Black requests a resumption, White lives.

However, if neither player requests a resumption, the White stones are dead, anyway. Why is that not the result if there is no resumption?

Rakshasa: If both players ended it too early, then it isn't the ruleset that has problems. ;) Perhaps it should have a clause about who goes first if both want a resumptions... But should the rules add bloat to deal with situations that arise due to sloppiness from the players?

Bill: Well, in a sense neither wants a resumption, since whoever requests one goes second. The Japanese rule may be fairer than, say, the AGA rule, in which resumptions just continue with the last player to move going second. The point is that such a situation is likely to arise only during discussion after play has stopped, so that the players have mutually discovered correct play (or play that both now believe to be correct). Better that neither player benefit rather than that one player benefit at random.

As for the rules dealing with situations that arise because of player errors, they pretty well have to, don't they? Otherwise they assume perfection. Just like laws in real life, game rules have to deal with human imperfection.


Bob Myers: Does anyone have a link to an on-line version of the Japanese 1989 Rules in Japanese? (moved and edited: RobertJasiek)


DougRidgway Did a big trim 2004-08-09. I removed a Bill Spight credit when I reworked his words. I believe Robert Jasiek wrote this:

  • Interpretation of professional Japanese rules: The [ext] Japanese 2003 Rules are the authoritative interpretation[1].

In addition to L and D, it'd be nice to touch on some of the other issues, ie. 3PWC, filling the last ko, famous disputes.


Robert Pauli:
[1] "authoritative interpretation"? Says who? Opinions please be tagged with author.
[2] Whom are you talking to?
[3] That version which counts three points in a hane seki?


This is a copy of the living page "Japanese Rules/ Discussion" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2007 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About