[computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Robert Jasiek
jasiek at snafu.de
Thu Jan 4 07:13:59 PST 2007
Petri Pitkanen wrote:
> All these are rather imaginary problems really.
Back to basic problems then:
# # # # #
# . # . #
# # # # #
Black can be killed, if his strategy is not strong enough
and he fills his own eye. The rules do not clarify if they
allow weak strategy by the defender. It is only our interpretation
of how the rules should work that gives them some sense.
> How many times you end
> arguing about the outcome of a game at the club?
Is this a question about the quality of Japanese rules
or about a typical opponent's unwillingness to participate
in an argument about their application? For computer go,
this is a real issue: one needs a procedure for what happens
if the programs (or the programmers) disagree.
> Japanese rules are
> de-facto rules in international go
Not Japanese rules are one of the de-facto standards, but the pretence
that it would be Japanese rules. My models (one example see attached
at the end) of verbal Japanese rules are
closer to that standard than any official Japanese ruleset, even though
all tournament officials sell you the opposite.
> and hence computer programs should
> implement them best they can.
If programmers are happy with that torture and continue to
agree to have tournaments with Japanese-style rules, then
so be it. But it is not necessary.
> simple
> counting procedure out weights any problems encountered so far.
Have you ever published an algorithm? I haven't seen any so far.
Japanese fill-in counting is not so simple to implement as counting
procedures that can be done by nothing but flood-filling.
> Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed
> to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not
> require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly
> passes should be awarded a point for his skill.
It is a myth that this would be a significant advantage. For an
explanation, see it in a context of advantages, as cited below.
--
robert jasiek
version 2, last update 2005-05-23, first day 2005-05-21
Model of Commonly in Germany Used Verbal Rules
§1 General
Go is played by two players - Black and White - with stones and
the grid board consisting of, by default, 19x19
intersections.
A string is a stone and any stone of the same colour continuously
connected to it via grid lines.
A liberty of a string is an empty intersection adjacent to at
least one of its stones.
A position is the distribution of black or white stones on the
board's specific intersections.
§2 Alternation
The players alternate. Black starts.
Depending on regional or historical differences, some of the
following variants applies:
Variant 1:
The player having the turn makes either a play or a pass.
A pass succeeding a pass ends the alternation.
Variant 2:
The player having the turn makes either a play or a
proto-pass.
A proto-pass succeeding a proto-pass ends the alternation.
A proto-pass is either an explicit pass or some
equivalent implicit action.
§3 Play
A play is placing one's own stone on an empty intersection and
then removing any opposing strings without liberty.
A prisoner is a stone of a removed string. Every prisoner is kept
for determination of the result.
Basic ko: During the alternation, a play succeeding a play may not
recreate the position.
No Result: Depending on regional or historical differences, some
of the following variants applies:
Variant 1:
If at least one player is ca. 3 kyu or stronger, then a
triple ko cycle may end the game as a No Result.
If at least one player is ca. 1 kyu or stronger, then
shapes behaving like triple ko may end the game as
a No Result.
Players ca. 1 kyu or stronger should not make
non-ko-threat attacks in a sending-2-returning-1.
Variant 2: If a play recreates the position and if the
players agree, then exceptionally and immediately the
game ends as a No Result.
No suicide: A play not removing any opposing strings may not
create one's own string without liberty.
§4 Procedure for Determination of the Result
After the alternation, the players do the following in order:
Occupy some or all dame somehow. In championship games, occupy all
dame somehow.
Remove dead stones from territory and add them to the prisoners.
Bent-4-in-the-corner: Depending on regional or historical
differences, some of the following variants applies:
Variant 1: If at least one player is ca. 10 kyu or stronger,
then bent-4-in-the-corner is dead independently of
the rest of the board.
Variant 2: Bent-4-in-the-corner is dead independently of the
rest of the board.
Count the number of territory intersections plus prisoners of
opposing colour for each player.
Agree on who is the winner, or whether the game is a tie.
§5 Arbitration
Where the rules are unclear or incomplete or if the players
disagree, the arbitrating body decides.
Objective Advantages of the Scoring Methods
[Version 2, 2006-01-08]
Common Objective Advantages of All Scoring Methods
Authentic
Each scoring method describes the game of Go and not some other game.
Fair
Each scoring method gives equal chances to Black and White, except for
the first move of the alternation.
Suitable for Professionals
In principle, all professionals are able to use rules regardless of the
scoring method.
Note: This is so even if some professionals might not like some
particular scoring methods.
Strategic Difficulty
The practical strategic difficulty is equally complex. The game is
equally demanding under whichever scoring method is
used.
Divine Logic
For each scoring method, it is possible in principle and in general to
define "strategy", "life", "death", "seki", "eye", "dame",
"teire", "ko threat", etc. In the near future, it will also be possible
to define some higher level objects like "connection",
"sente", "thickness", "aji", etc.
Notes: In the far future, mathematical definitions will solve Go
completely. If we called this an advantage, then at
the same time we would be saying that playing Go would not be that much
interesting any longer: It would be an
application of nothing but mathematical definitions. We appreciate
divine logic not because of its potential to
spoil our playing fun. We appreciate the existence of divine logic
because it confirms that the players' strategic
thinking is meaningful. This is the current objective advantage of the
existence of divine logic. - Sakai has
mentioned divine logic (also sometimes called "beauty") as an advantage
of Life and Death Territory Scoring.
This is subjective since it is an advantage of all other scoring methods
as well. - Nam calls the divine logic "logic
system". - For different scoring methods, their divine logics differ
slightly from each other and this can have
different consequences for some scarce shapes. This does not affect the
existence of divine logic for every scoring
method.
Optional Phase for Agreement about Removals
Together with each scoring method, an optional phase (or several phases)
can be used that allows the players to agree
about removals of stones shortly before execution of a counting
procedure. This is an advantage because by far most
players like such an option.
Availability of Counting Procedures
Under each scoring method, some counting procedures are available. This
is so regardless of whether removable stones
are removed or whether dame in between independently alive stones are
filled, partially filled, or unfilled.
Notes: Counting procedures differ. The common advantage is the existence
of some counting procedures at all.
Some counting procedures work only if all removable stones are removed.
Some counting procedures need slight
modifications if not all dame in between independently alive stones are
filled.
Frequent Pass Fights Do Not Occur
Under each scoring method, frequent pass fights do not occur.
Notes: The Molasses Ko pass fight under positional superko is rare and a
consequence of the ko rule rather than
the scoring method. When it is said that under each scoring method
frequent pass fights do not occur, one has to
be more precise: They do not occur under Area Scoring, under Control
Territory Scoring, or under Life and Death
Territory Scoring, provided that the typically used forms of Control
Territory Scoring, or Life and Death Territory
Scoring are considered. Frequent pass fights can occur under some forms
of Basic Territory Scoring. Currently it
is believed that frequent pass fights do not occur under that form of
Ikeda Territory I Scoring. However, further
research is necessary to confirm this convincingly. The same has to be
said about Area Scoring with Half Point
Button.
Advantages of Area Scoring
Example: Simplified Ing Rules.
Suitable for Amateurs - Objective Advantage
Amateurs are able to use rules with Area Scoring.
Notes: This is so even if some amateurs might not like Area Scoring and
some others might still have to learn
what Area Scoring is. If the optional phase for agreement about removals
is skipped, then furthermore Area
Scoring becomes suitable also for promotion. - The advantage is shared
with Control Territory Scoring and Ikeda
Territory I Scoring. The advantage is not shared with Life and Death
Territory Scoring because almost all
amateurs absolutely do not want to learn the many rules required for it.
Amateurs that like Life and Death
Territory Scoring use it in ambiguous verbal rules only.
Used by Amateurs - Objective Advantage
Amateurs living in a country or region or attending a tournament where
rules with Area Scoring are used do actually use
Area Scoring.
Notes: Currently this advantage is not shared in an analogue form for
the other scoring method frequently used
in real world play, Life and Death Territory Scoring. Instead of Life
and Death Territory Scoring, amateurs
actually use very imprecise and differing verbal rules replacements for
it: They might use the same words like
"life" and "death" but with different or varying meanings, they might
use an idea of "two eyes" intuitively, or
they might use the concepts of "immortal" and "control" intuitively.
They are not able to explain any non-basic
shape by other means than a case by case approach. Amateurs playing
under Life and Death Territory Scoring do
not use this scoring but a case by case approach.
Short - Objective Advantage
Rules with Area Scoring are short.
Notes: This is an objective advantage because learning the rules and
execution of their application are the easier
the shorter they are. Problems from trying to understand the rules'
wording, translation mistakes, accidental
overlooking of a rule, and accidental wrong combination of two rules are
the less likely the shorter the rules are.
The advantage is shared, although there to some lesser degree, with
Control Territory Scoring and Ikeda
Territory I Scoring. If one is careless, then one can make all rules
longer than necessary: E.g., this can be seen by
the current Chinese or Ing Rules, which use the completely superfluous
terms "life" and "death". They are not
needed for Area Scoring, as in the following specifications: It is
removed what is without liberties or on what the
players agree; it is scored what is on the board.
Simple - Objective Advantage
Rules with Area Scoring are simple.
Notes: This is an objective advantage because learning the rules,
writing them down precisely, and execution of
their application are the easier the simpler they are. Simple rules
require involvement of referees only scarcely.
Problems from trying to understand the rules' wording, translation
mistakes, accidental overlooking of a rule,
and accidental wrong combination of two rules are the less likely the
simpler the rules are. The advantage is
shared, although there to some lesser degree, with Control Territory
Scoring and Ikeda Territory I Scoring. The
advantage is not shared with Life and Death Territory Scoring, which is
not even fully understood by the
professionals using it.
Logical - Objective Advantage
Rules with Area Scoring are logical.
Notes: This is an objective advantage because the rules can always be
applied to any position and do always
produce an outcome of a game. In fact, this is not only an advantage,
but it ought to be considered a mandatory
feature of any abstract board game like Go. The advantage is shared with
Control Territory Scoring and Ikeda
Territory I Scoring. The advantage is also shared with precise rulesets
for Life and Death Territory Scoring
written by rules experts. If one is careless, then one can make all
rules illogical: E.g., this can be seen by the
current Chinese or Ing Rules, which contain a lot of ambiguity. The
advantage is not shared with current Korean
or Japanese rules that contain a lot of ambiguity. Great research effort
has made it possible in principle to let
Japanese rules be logical. Yet more research effort will be needed to
make Korean rules logical. In contrast and
apart from carelessness, the illogic of the current Chinese or Ing rules
is related mostly to ko rules while, of
course, the basic idea of Area Scoring is logical. - The "logical" here
is the fundamental mathematical correctness
for its own sake. It should not be confused with the "divine logic" that
additionally refers to explanation of
strategy.
Complete - Objective Advantage
Rules with Area Scoring are complete.
Notes: This is an objective advantage because the rules can always be
applied to any position and do always
produce an outcome of a game. This is a direct consequence of the rules
being logical. "logical" is the cause -
"complete" is the effect. For shortcomings of current Chinese or Ing
rules or the success of rulesets by rules
experts, see under Logical.
Clear - Objective Advantage
It is easy to make rules with Area Scoring clear. They can have a clear
wording and correct translation is easy.
Notes: This is a consequence of "short", "simple", "logical",
"complete". The longer, the more complicated, the
more ambiguous, the more imcomplete a ruleset becomes the more difficult
it is to let its wording be clear. Then
compromises need to be made: E.g., the clarity of a ruleset for Control
Terrtory Scoring or for the Ikeda Territory
I Scoring already has a somewhat lower degree. If one is careless, like
in the current Chinese or Ing rules, then
the degree of clarity can easily drop much. The advantage is not shared
with Life and Death Territory Scoring at
all because there cannot be amy compromise that would make relatively
short rules with great clarity. Instead
extremely long commentaries become essential. Contrarily, commentaries
for Area Scoring can be kept short.
Applicable - Objective Advantage
Rules with Area Scoring can be applied as rules.
Notes: This may sound trivial and it is. However, it is also essential
because it is one of the fundamental purposes
of having rules at all. Despite this, the advantage is not shared with
Life and Death Territory Scoring. The
advantage is shared with Ikeda Territory I Scoring and, to a somewhat
lower degree, with Control Territory
Scoring. Being careless plays a great role: The current Chinese rules
are not applicable in case of their ko rules
because they contradict themselves. The current Ing rules are not
applicable at all not only in case of their ko
rules but also in case of their scoring rules because the purpose and
meaning of the various related breath type
terms is very unclear. The Ing scoring rules become applicable only if
one simply ignores all those breath type
terms.
Consistent - Objective Advantage
Rules with Area Scoring are consistent: The same rules apply during all
moves of the game. Moves do not alter their
nature during the scoring because scoring does not even rely on moves at
all.
Notes: This is an important objective advantage not so much because it
makes the rules simpler but much more
because for consistent rules it is extremely much easier to verify
whether strange, unwanted strategic side effects
like frequent pass fights occur at all. The advantage is not shared with
the other scoring methods. Thus for each
of them one has to make great research efforts to restrict the potential
for strange, unwanted strategic side
effects .
Equivalence - Objective Advantage
The Territory Count equals the Area Count. Therefore either can be used
instead of only one.
Note: One should not overestimate the advantage because equivalence
means that both counts determine the
Area Score.
Availability of Ing Fill-in Counting - Subjective Advantage
Rules with Area Scoring allow Ing Fill-in Counting as a counting
procedure. This makes the number of points that remain
to be counted small. Putting away the stones into the boxes is a result
check. The counting is suitable for those children
that cannot count yet.
Availability of Ing Fill-in Counting - Not an Objective Advantage
It is an objective advantage of Ing Fill-in Counting that the number of
points that remain to be counted is small. However,
the same can be said of another counting procedure: Prisoner Counting
for Area Scoring. The result check of Ing Fill-in
Counting is not as safe as the result check of New Zealand Half or Full
Counting because the former cannot be repeated
without replaying the entire game in case of suspected accidental
mistakes while the latter can be repeated immediately:
Besides the former can be flawed if the boxes do not work properly or if
unequal numbers of black and white stones add
up to 360 accidentally. While Ing Fill-in Counting does have its
advantages, it also has its disadvantages: Generally, the
required special equipment is perceived as very unaesthetic. The special
equipment does not always ensure what it
promises - a guarantee of 180 stones per box. The Ing Fill-in Counting
destroys the scoring position; so after a doubt
about a possibly occurring accidental mistake, the entire game has to be
replayed. That Ing Fill-in Counting is suitable for
children is not an objective advantage because there are some Stone
Counting for Area Scoring counting procedures for
that one also does not need any ability to count. (E.g., fill the empty
intersections surrounded by only one player's stones
with his stones, then remove pairs of one black and one white stone from
the board until only the winner's stones remain
on the board.) One may say that the Ing Fill-in Counting has some
advantage but objectively one may not say that the
availability of the Ing Fill-in Counting would be an advantage in
comparison to other counting procedures.
Availability of New Zealand Half Counting - Subjective Advantage
Rules with New Zealand Half Counting are fast, keep the scoring
position, and permit a convincing result check.
Notes: Like with every counting procedure, it requires a little practice
of some games until a player can execute it
reasonably quickly and correctly. That the scoring position is kept
allows recounting without having to replay the
entire game. The result check is: Black Score plus White Score plus Not
Scoring Intersections equals 361.
Availability of New Zealand Half Counting - Not an Objective Advantage
While New Zealand Half Counting does have its objective advantages, its
availability is not an objective advantage
because Japanese Rearrangement Counting for Territory Scoring is another
counting procedure that is similarly fast and
New Zealand Full Counting is another counting procedure that keeps the
scoring position and allows a result check.
Availability of Chinese Half Counting - Subjective Advantage
Chinese Half Counting makes use of the decimal system.
Availability of Chinese Half Counting - Not an Objective Advantage
Japanese Rearrangement Counting is another counting procedure that makes
use of the decimal system. Other counting
procedures have other advantages. Chinese Half Counting has the
disadvantage that it destroys the scoring position.
Availability of Japanese Rearrangement Counting - Subjective Advantage
See under Advantages for Control Territory Scoring.
Availability of Japanese Rearrangement Counting - Not an Objective Advantage
See under Advantages for Control Territory Scoring. Besides it requires
the otherwise superfluous usage of Pass Stones
to execute Japanese Rearrangement Counting under Area Scoring.
Only One Playout Move-Sequence - Objective Advantage
Area Scoring requires at most one playout move-sequence, which can be
executed on the playing board itself.
Notes: This is a very important aspect that contributes to the scoring
method's applicability. The advantage is
shared with Ikeda Territory I Scoring and to a somewhat lower degree
with Control Territory Scoring, where four
move-sequences and two extra boards are necessary for playout. The
advantage is not shared with Life and
Death Territory Scoring that relies on an infinite(!) number of playout
move-sequence and, one might say, also an
infinite number of extra boards for them.
Easier Handling by Tournament Rules - Not an Objective Advantage for
Rules of Play
Since prisoners are not needed, they cannot drop off the board
accidentally or removed intentionally. It is not easy to
cheat by removing or adding stones on the board. However, these are
issues related to tournament rules and therefore are
not objective advantages for rules of play.
Easier Perception of Scoring Objects - Subjective Advantage
All the scoring objects are on the board. It is not necessay to perceive
prisoners outside the board.
Easier Perception of Scoring Objects - Not an Objective Advantage
It depends on personal preference whether a player's perception fits
well for prisoners as scoring objects.
Easier Endgame Calculation - Subjective Advantage
Endgame calculation is easier under Area Scoring than under Territory
Scoring because the final scoring objects "stones"
and "empty intersections" can also be used for endgame calculation.
Easier Endgame Calculation - Not an Objective Advantage
Due to the equivalence proofs for American, Ikeda, or the go-rules
mailing list's International Rules, the final scoring
objects "stones" and "empty intersections" can be used for endgame
calculation also under Territory Scoring. Therefore
the advantage for Area Scoring is also an advantage for Territory
Scoring. In other words, it is not an objective advantage
only for Area Scoring.
No Pass Stones - Objective Advantage
Usage of pass stones is not necessary.
Notes: The only reason to use them is a desire to use Japanese
Rearrangement Counting under Area Scoring. This
might be considered a good compromise, but it does not alter the fact
that pass stones are unnecessary for Area
Scoring. The advantage is shared with Control Territory Scoring and Life
and Death Territory Scoring. The
advantage is not shared with Ikeda Territory I Scoring. - Pass stones
are not a great burden; players favouring
Territory Scoring consider it a greater obstacle that the last move's
pass stone represents a point for the one
valuable odd dame.
Seki is a Natural Consequence of the Rules - Objective Advantage
It is a natural consequence of the rules that there are points in sekis.
Notes: This matters only in the scarce asymmetrical sekis or the even
scarcer sekis with one-sided dame. The
advantage occurs as a strategic consequence of application of the rules
to sekis, even if "seki" is not a concept in
the rules. Thereby the points aspect of sekis is not created
artificially in the rules. This provides objectivity. The
advantage is shared with Ikeda Territory I Scoring. Surprisingly, the
advantage is shared also with Control
Territory Scoring but there the opposite strategic consequence of no
points in sekis occurs! The advantage is not
shared with Life and Death Territory Scoring that has to introduce very
long and very artificial exceptions in the
rules to justify no points in sekis.
Immaterial Tradition in Particular Shapes - Objective Advantage
Tradition is immaterial for the outcome of particular shape.
Notes: Current Chinese ko rules and Ing ko rules are not that objective.
The advantage is objective because not
emotion counts but well-definedness of the rules. It is immaterial
whether or not there are points in sekis, whether
or not a bent-4 is fought for, whether a particular shape behaves like a
seki, etc., if only the rules provide an
unequivocal score in each case. It is coincidence that under Area
Scoring there are point in sekis or that
sometimes fighting a bent-4 is strategically correct. The advantage is
shared with Control Territory Scoring and
Ikeda Territory I Scoring, although under different scoring methods
different outcomes occur. The advantage is
not shared with Life and Death Territory Scoring because that scoring
method is specifically designed to maintain
the Japanese or the Korean tradition in countless particular shapes.
Good for Future - Subjective Advantage
Area Scoring is good for the future.
Note: Benson suggested this as an advantage.
Good for Future - Not an Objective Advantage
While obviously the best scoring method would be the best for the future
development of Go in the world, the claim per se
that a particular scoring method might be the best is not an objective
advantage by itself. It can only become an objective
advantage if it is justified by objective underlying reasoning. To see
whether Area Scoring has such underlying reasoning, it
has to be stated together with the intended implication about the future.
Additional Advantage of Area Scoring with Half Point Button
Example: Spight Area Button Rules.
Parity - Objective Advantage
Each integer can be used for the full count komi.
Notes: Komi can be adjusted by, e.g., +0.5 to avoid ties. The advantage
occurs for an even number of not scoring
intersections in the scoring position. Compared to Area Scoring, the
price for the additional advantage is a
slightly longer rules text, a slightly less easy application of the
rules, a somewhat lower consistency, and a slight
derivation from traditional Area Scoring outcomes of some scarce shapes
on the board. The advantage is an
objective advantage because, in relation to sizes of typical endgame
plays, komi increments are possible in finer
steps. The advantage is shared with all types of Territory Scoring. The
advantage is not shared with pure Area
Scoring.
Advantages of Control Territory Scoring
Example: New Amateur-Japanese Rules.
Suitable for Amateurs - Objective Advantage
Amateurs are able to use rules with Control Territory Scoring.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring, except that learning
Control Territory Scoring requires a
somewhat greater effort than learning Area Scoring.
Short - Objective Advantage
Rules with Control Territory Scoring are relatively short.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Simple - Objective Advantage
Rules with Control Territory Scoring are relatively simple.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Logical - Objective Advantage
Rules with Control Territory Scoring are logical.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Complete - Objective Advantage
Rules with Control Territory Scoring are complete.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Clear - Objective Advantage
It is relatively easy to make rules with Control Territory Scoring
clear. They can have a clear wording and correct
translation is relatively easy.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Applicable - Objective Advantage
Rules with Control Territory Scoring can be applied as rules.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Parity - Objective Advantage
Each integer can be used for the full count komi.
Notes: Komi can be adjusted by +0.5 to avoid ties. The advantage occurs
for an even number of not scoring
intersections in the scoring position. The advantage is an objective
advantage because, in relation to sizes of
typical endgame plays, komi increments are possible in finer steps. The
advantage is shared with all types of
Territory Scoring and with Area Scoring with Half Point Button. The
advantage is not shared with pure Area
Scoring.
Availability of Japanese Rearrangement Counting - Subjective Advantage
Japanese Rearrangement Counting is fast and makes use of the decimal
system.
Notes: Davies suggested: It is easier to count the score. One sees the
score on the board at once. No special
equipment is required
Availability of Japanese Rearrangement Counting - Not an Objective Advantage
New Zealand Half Counting for Area Scoring is another counting procedure
that is similarly fast. Chinese Half Counting is
another counting procedure that makes use of the decimal system.
Japanese Rearrangement Counting has the
disadvantage that it destroys the scoring position. Hence it is not the
availability of Japanese Rearrangement Counting that
would be an objective advantage.
Notes: Concerning Davies suggestions: Whether under a counting procedure
it is easier to count than under other
counting procedures depends on every player's familiarity with
application of different counting procedures.
Besides it depends on what shall be the definition of "easier": If one
defines it as "the final position has not
changed", then New Zealand Counting for Area Scoring is the choice. If
one defines it as "the fewest number
of intersections remains to be counted", then Ing Fill-in Counting for
Area Scoring is the choice. If one defines it
as "best agreement to decimal system", then Japanese Rearrangement
Counting is the choice. If one defines it as
"smallest number of executed elementary counting actions", then both New
Zealand Half Counting for Area
Scoring and Japanese Rearrangement Counting for Territory Scoring are
the choices. If one defines it as "fastest
combination with putting the stones back to the bowls", then Chinese
Half Counting is the choice. - Does one see
the score on the board at once? The first question here is: At which
moment shall the score be seen at once? In
the scoring position before removal of stones, in the scoring position
after removal of stones but before the
counting procedure, or after the counting procedure? Let us assume that
Davies refers to the easiest visual case,
i.e. after the counting procedure. As it is well known, human beings are
able to recognize the number of up to four
objects at once. Since after the counting procedure typically more than
four objects need to be perceived, it is
wrong to say that one would see the score on the board at once. Every
experience for Japanese Rearrangement
Counting agrees that it takes some thinking about the position after the
counting procedure to know the score's
figure. Furthermore, it can happen that prisoners off the board remain
after the counting procedure. So one
cannot even always say that the score would be only on the board. - It
is an advantage that no special equipment
is required, but this is not an objective advantage because none of the
counting procedures for Territory Scoring
or Area Scoring, except Ing Fill-in Counting requires any special
equipment. - To summarize, Davies' suggestions
are not objective.
Four Playout Move-Sequences - Conditional Objective Advantage
Control Territory Scoring requires at most four playout move-sequence,
which can be executed on two extra boards.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring. Besides it should be
pointed out that three playout
move-sequences would be enough if slightly greater derivation from
traditional outcomes of shapes on the board
and scarcely asymmetrical behaviour of colour-inverse positions are
tolerated. Four playout move-sequences are
four times as bad as just one playout move-sequence; the objective
advantage exists only in comparison to the
infinite number under Life and Death Territory Scoring.
No Pass Stones - Objective Advantage
Usage of pass stones is not necessary.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Unvaluable Dame - Objective Advantage of this Aspect
Notes: See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
No Unnecessary Defense in Territory in 1 Point Games - Objective Advantage
Notes: See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Seki is a Natural Consequence of the Rules - Objective Advantage
It is a natural consequence of the rules that there are no points in sekis.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Immaterial Tradition in Particular Shapes - Objective Advantage
Tradition is immaterial for the outcome of particular shape.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Easier Endgame Calculation - Subjective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Easier Endgame Calculation - Not an Objective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Agreement with the Kanji - Subjective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Agreement with the Kanji - Not an Objective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Missing Perception Difficulty for Beginners - Subjective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Missing Perception Difficulty for Beginners - Not an Objective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Advantages of Ikeda Territory I Scoring
Example: Ikeda Territory I Rules.
Suitable for Amateurs - Objective Advantage
Amateurs are able to use rules with Ikeda Territory I Scoring.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring, except that learning Ikeda
Territory I Scoring requires a
somewhat greater effort than learning Area Scoring.
Short - Objective Advantage
Rules with Ikeda Territory I Scoring are almost short.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Simple - Objective Advantage
Rules with Ikeda Territory I Scoring are almost simple.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Logical - Objective Advantage
Rules with Ikeda Territory I Scoring are logical.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Complete - Objective Advantage
Rules with Ikeda Territory I Scoring are complete.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Clear - Objective Advantage
It is relatively easy to make rules with Ikeda Territory I Scoring
clear. They can have a clear wording and correct
translation is relatively easy.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Applicable - Objective Advantage
Rules with Ikeda Territory I Scoring can be applied as rules.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Parity - Objective Advantage
Each integer can be used for the full count komi.
Notes: See under Advantages for Control Territory Scoring.
Equivalence - Objective Advantage
Ikeda Territory I Scoring is equivalent to Ikeda Area III Scoring.
Therefore either can be used instead of only one.
Notes: The formal proof still deserves more precision. One should not
overestimate the advantage because
equivalence means that both representations are the same.
Availability of Japanese Rearrangement Counting - Subjective Advantage
See under Advantages for Control Territory Scoring.
Availability of Japanese Rearrangement Counting - Not an Objective Advantage
See under Advantages for Control Territory Scoring.
Only One Playout Move-Sequence - Objective Advantage
Ikeda Territory I Scoring requires at most one playout move-sequence,
which can be executed on the playing board itself.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Unvaluable Dame - Objective Advantage of this Aspect
Notes: See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
No Unnecessary Defense in Territory in 1 Point Games - Objective Advantage
Notes: See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Seki is a Natural Consequence of the Rules - Objective Advantage
It is a natural consequence of the rules that there are points in sekis.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Immaterial Tradition in Particular Shapes - Objective Advantage
Tradition is immaterial for the outcome of particular shape.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Easier Endgame Calculation - Subjective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Easier Endgame Calculation - Not an Objective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Agreement with the Kanji - Subjective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Agreement with the Kanji - Not an Objective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Missing Perception Difficulty for Beginners - Subjective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Missing Perception Difficulty for Beginners - Not an Objective Advantage
See under Advantages for Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Advantages of Life and Death Territory Scoring
Example: Japanese 1989 Rules.
Parts of the Divine Logic Are in the Rules - Subjective Advantage
Definitions or desires for definitions of "strategy", "life", "death",
"dame", etc. are in the rules.
Notes: "seki", "eye", "teire", "ko threat", etc. are not in the current
Japanese rules. Do not confuse the
rules-technical "in-seki" with the dual life "seki" here. The current
Japanese rules contain "in-seki". "seki",
"eye", "teire", "ko threat" are in the current Korean rules as desires
for definitions. Other objects of divine logic
are not in the current Japanese or Korean rules: "connection", "sente",
"thickness", "aji", etc.
Parts of the Divine Logic Are in the Rules - Not an Objective Advantage
Parts of divine logic can be in the rules or can be in a mathematically
precise strategic commentary on application of the
rules. Therefore it is unnecessary to have parts of divine logic in the
rules. Besides the rules become inapplicable as rules if
parts of divine logic are in the rules. Something that is unnecessary is
not an objective advantage. Something that turns
applicable rules into inapplicable rules is not an objective advantage
but a clear disadvantage.
Parity - Objective Advantage
Each integer can be used for the full count komi.
Notes: See under Advantages for Control Territory Scoring.
Availability of Japanese Rearrangement Counting - Subjective Advantage
See under Advantages for Control Territory Scoring.
Availability of Japanese Rearrangement Counting - Not an Objective Advantage
See under Advantages for Control Territory Scoring.
No Pass Stones - Objective Advantage
Usage of pass stones is not necessary.
Notes: See under Advantages for Area Scoring.
Unvaluable Dame - Subjective Advantages of this Aspect
It has been Japanese and Korean tradition that dame are unvaluable and
that normally game records do not show them.
Fighting of dame would not be considered "art", i.e. "striving for
higher level strategy". It is considered luck rather than skill
which player could get one more dame than his opponent. Dame should not
be something to fight for because all the dame
are equal. However, also this is not an objective criterion because the
same can be said about earlier endgame plays of
equal value. Filling dame is considered a waste of time, however, this
is not objective because the so called convenient
filling of dame until or during the counting procedure is done by those
claiming that waste of time. It would be objective if
the used counting procedure were consistent with not filling the dame,
which are not in sekis, at all. Under current
Japanese rules, it is particularly hard to argue that dame would be
unvaluable - they are valuable as preventing
independently alive groups next to dame from having territory due to
having the rules technical feature of being "in seki". It
requires even longer rules proposed by rules experts to avoid such
undesired side effects of formal rules.
Unvaluable Dame - Objective Advantage of this Aspect
Typically at the end of the alternation, there are quite some dame (and
typically significantly more than there would be
earlier endgame plays of equal values), which are not in sekis, that can
be played in any order. Unless threatening teire,
there is hardly any higher level strategy involved in choosing some
order of plays. To appreciate a relatively high level of
effort required for strategic planning on average per move of a game, it
makes sense that dame, which are not in sekis, do
not need to be part of competitive play.
Notes: However, opinions differ much more significantly about dame when
there are still one or several teire in
the position. Also it remains to be clarified whether alternation of
plays and passes may continue until successive
passes regardless of the number of dame, which are not in sekis, on the
board. To avoid any necessiety for a
player to give strategic hints to his opponent during the alternation
and thereby violate the competitive purpose
of the alternation, it should be allowed without any restriction to
continue alternation of moves as long as neither
player has made the final pass and thus at least one player still might
have the intention of making a play. - The
advantage of dame being unvaluable is shared with all types of Territory
Scoring but not shared with Area
Scoring. However, because of rules technicalities in current versions of
rulesets, it is recommended to fill all
dame, which are not in sekis, in alternation under Control Territory
Scoring as used by the New
Amateur-Japanese Rules or under Ikeda Territory I Scoring. In case of
the latter ruleset, there can be exceptions
when it is advantageous to fill some particular dame during the playout
rather than during the regular
alternation. - To summarize, it is much easier to make dame, which are
not in sekis, strategically unvaluable than
to avoid a necessiety for their alternate filling. - As Sakai has
pointed out, in the early 18th century, when there
were only dame and teire left, those were not considered competitive any
longer during the alternation of a game
while nowadays teire may be competed and dame may be filled in alternation.
No Unnecessary Defense in Territory in 1 Point Games - Objective Advantage
If a game's score will be at most 1, then competent players with
sufficient thinking time do not make an unnecessary
defense inside their own territory.
Notes: This is an objective advantage because on average it increases
the degree of appreciation of a relatively
high level of effort required for strategic planning. The advantage is
shared with all Territory Scoring methods.
The advantage is not shared with Area Scoring because after the last
dame in between independently alive strings
is filled, the score remains constant if a player then makes some
unnecessary defense inside his own territory that
does not contribute to removal of removable stones. - As can be seen,
the advantage is objective but very
specialized. It should also be pointed out that beginners might view
upon the matter differently.
Teire Need Not Be Played - Subjective Advantage
It is not necessary to play the teire.
Note: Sakai suggested this as an advantage.
Teire Need Not Be Played - Not an Objective Advantage
Even Sakai agrees that nowadays almost all players emphasize the
competitive aspect of Go and that they include teire in
the competition. The advantage is Sakai's personal preference and not an
objective advantage.
Tradition in Particular Shapes - Subjective Advantage
The current Japanese / Korean rules are designed to preserve most of the
Japanese / Korean tradition for particular
shapes.
Notes: In a global perspective, a national tradition is not objective if
it is not shared globally. Tradition has
weaknesses because much of it is transmitted verbally and thus
equivocally. E.g., every Korean professional or
strong amateur gives a different or no answer on what a "ko threat" is.
Such great imprecision is the opposite of
objectivity. - Regardless, every tradition can have its underlying
divine logic. However, the existence of divine
logic says nothing about one tradition being superior or inferior to
other traditions because they all have some
divine logic.
Easier Endgame Calculation - Subjective Advantage
Endgame calculation is easier under Territory Scoring than under Area
Scoring because the final scoring objects "territory"
and "prisoners" can also be used for endgame calculation.
Note: Davies suggested this as an advantage.
Easier Endgame Calculation - Not an Objective Advantage
Due to the equivalence proofs for American, Ikeda, or the go-rules
mailing list's International Rules, the final scoring
objects "territory" and "prisoners" can be used for endgame calculation
also under Area Scoring. Therefore the advantage
for Territory Scoring is also an advantage for Area Scoring. In other
words, it is not an objective advantage only for
Territory Scoring.
Forgotten Dame Can be Filled by Either Player - Subjective Advantage
If a player forgets to fill a dame, then either player can fill it and
there is no disadvantage.
Note: Davies suggested this as an advantage.
Forgotten Dame Can be Filled by Either Player - Not an Objective Advantage
If Area Scoring is used, then neither player forgets any dame, which
does not disturb a seki, because they are worth
points. If Control Territory Scoring as used by the New Amateur-Japanese
Rules is used, then the players are interested
in filling the dame in between independently alive groups because
thereby rules technical intersections controlled by both
players are avoided. Contrarily, with Life and Death Territory Scoring,
forgetting filled dame is a relatively frequent
incident at all. Even worse, with Life and Death Territory Scoring that
uses a rules technical in-seki definition, such
forgotten dame become much bigger than one point because they turn
groups of territory into in-seki groups. Under Ikeda
Territory I Scoring, it is not clear when the players would typically
develop a habit of filling or not filling all the dame in
between independently alive groups. - Since it is better if the
potential problem does not even occur, as under Area
Scoring, than if it occurs and can lead to the problem of forgotten dame
under Life and Death Territory Scoring, it is not
an objective advantage that forgotten dame can be filled by either
player under Life and Death Territory Scoring.
Dame Technical Issues Do Not Need to Decide the Winner - Subjective
Advantage
Dame technical issues should not decide the winner.
Note: Davies suggested this as an advantage and that some other Japanese
players would agree.
Dame Technical Issues Do Not Need to Decide the Winner - Not an
Objective Advantage
Due to the rules technical "in seki" definition, the current Japanese
rules are those with a great likelihood that dame
technical issues might decide the winner. The current Korean rules avoid
this but are still very ambiguous because, e.g.,
"seki" is undefined. If the advantage should be an advantage for some
scoring methods at all, then more likely for such that
are not Life and Death Territory Scoring. So the suggested advantage is
not an objective one for Life and Death Territory
Scoring
Agreement with the Kanji - Subjective Advantage
Territory Scoring rules are in agreement with the idea of "surrounded"
in the Kanji used for "Weiqi" and "Igo".
Note: Davies suggested this as an advantage.
Agreement with the Kanji - Not an Objective Advantage
What about prisoners? What about stones on the board under Area Scoring?
Since the single concept of "surrounded"
does not describe either scoring method, it is not an objective
advantage for either. Besides, a linguistic matter has nothing
to do with the rules of play.
Missing Perception Difficulty for Beginners - Subjective Advantage
Beginners taught by Area Scoring think it was enough to get more stones
on the board. This is not so for Territory
Scoring.
Note: Davies suggested this as an advantage.
Missing Perception Difficulty for Beginners - Not an Objective Advantage
If Area Soring is not explained as if it were Stone Scoring, then hardly
could a reasonable teacher create such a
perception for his pupils. For evey scoring method, it has been
demonstrated that beginners can be taught a fitting
perception. E.g., Area Scoring can be accompanied by the perceptive
concept "control of a greater share of the board".
Hence the suggested advantage of Territory Scoring is not objective.
Absorbed Parts of Divine Logic Make Application Simple - Subjective
Advantage
That Life and Death Territory Scoring tries to absorb some strategic
objects into the rules makes their application simple.
Note: Davies suggested this as an advantage.
Absorbed Parts of Divine Logic Make Application Simple - Not an
Objective Advantage
Absorption of some strategic objects into the rules has turned their
application into consideration of infinite numbers of
hypothetical strategies and infinite numbers of hypothetical sequences.
Since this is impossible in practice, rules with Life
and Death Territory Scoring have become inapplicable as rules. Instead
players and referees are forced to guess whether
or not their intuitive approach agrees to the rules. This is nothing
that could be called simple. Therefore the suggested
advantage is not objective.
No Need to Agree on the End of Alternation - Subjective Advantage
There is no need to agree on the end of the alternation.
Note: Davies suggested this as an advantage.
No Need to Agree on the End of Alternation - Not an Objective Advantage
If there are no passes, then the game is a pass fight under No Pass
Rules. Therefore it is a false perception to say that
there would be no passes. All that one might still claim is usage of
verbal, implicit passes instead of explicit passes.
Whichever are used, since then passes are being used, they are the means
to end the alternation. Thus it is plainly wrong
to claim that there would be no agreement on the end of the alternation:
The succession of passes is that agreement. The
suggested advantage does not exist.
No Need for Several Phases at the Game End - Subjective Advantage
There is no need for several phases at the game end.
Note: Davies suggested this as an advantage.
No Need for Several Phases at the Game End - Not an Objective Advantage
Since Davies also suggests the possibility of informally filled dame,
the game end phases would have to start with a phase
in that dame and teire may be filled informally. Since informal filling
can lead to attacked teire, a resumption option is also
required. After a resumption, it has to be clarified if another phase
for filling dame and teire informally may occur. Then,
under Life and Death Territory Scoring, life, death, and territory must
be assessed in a phase, which might be short if the
players agree. Then in a next phase, dead stones can be removed from
territory. Then in a next phase, the counting
procedure can be executed. Then in a next phase, the result agreement
takes place. - The most obviously, for Life and
Death Territory Scoring it is wrong to say that there would not be a
need for several phases at the game end. Few phases
are possible much more easily with simple Area Scoring rules.
No Need for Removal of Stones - Subjective Advantage
Under Life and Death Territory Scoring, there is no need for removal of
stones.
Note: Davies suggested this as an advantage.
No Need for Removal of Stones - Not an Objective Advantage
It is correct that there is no need for removal of stones since counting
procedures exist that are able to count the scoring
position nevertheless. However, the advantage is not objective since
under every scoring method counting procedures
exist that are able to count the scoring position if it still contains
removable stones.
Application Has Never Led to Problems in Tournaments - Subjective Advantage
Application of Life and Death Territory Scoring rules has never led to
problems in tournaments. In particular, at World
Amateur Go Championships no problems have actually occurred.
Note: Davies claims this observation.
Application Has Never Led to Problems in Tournaments - Not an Objective
Advantage
It is well known that under Life and Death Territory Scoring rules
problems have occurred in professional tournaments. It
is also well known that almost no amateur player in the world knows or
even understands the fine print of the World
Amateur Go Championship Rules. According to Jasiek, who plays in many
amateur tournaments and has a skill to notice
disputes occurring in other players' games, problems with Life and Death
Territory Scoring rules are rather frequent while
problems, other than such related to carelessly imprecise wording of the
rules texts or lazy players not informing
themselves about rules at all, with the Area Scoring of rules are rare.
- So the advantage claimed for Life and Death
Territory Scoring is not objective.
Summary of the Objective Advantages
Step 1 - Listing All Objective Advantages
All Scoring Methods: Authentic, fair, suitable for professionals,
strategic difficulty, divine logic, optional phase for
agreement about removals, availability of counting procedures,
frequent pass fights do not occur.
Area Scoring: Suitable for amateurs, used by amateurs, short,
simple, logical, complete, clear, applicable,
consistent, equivalence, only one playout sequence, no pass
stones, seki is a natural consequence of the rules,
immaterial tradition in particular shapes.
Area Scoring with Half Point Button: [See under Area Scoring.]
Parity.
Control Territory Scoring: Suitable for amateurs, short, simple,
logical, complete, clear, applicable, parity, four
playout move-sequences (conditional advantage), no pass stones,
unvaluable dame (objective advantage of this
aspect), no unnecessary defense in territory in 1 point games,
seki is a natural consequence of the rules, immaterial
tradition in particular shapes.
Ikeda Territory I Scoring: Suitable for amateurs, short, simple,
logical, complete, clear, applicable, equivalence,
parity, only one playout sequence, unvaluable dame (objective
advantage of this aspect), no unnecessary defense in
territory in 1 point games, seki is a natural consequence of the
rules, immaterial tradition in particular shapes.
Life and Death Territory Scoring: Parity, no pass stones,
unvaluable dame (objective advantage of this aspect),
no unnecessary defense in territory in 1 point games.
Step 2 - Skipping the Obvious and Tiny Advantages
All Scoring Methods: Frequent pass fights do not occur.
Area Scoring: Suitable for amateurs, short, simple, logical,
complete, clear, applicable, consistent, only one
playout sequence, seki is a natural consequence of the rules,
immaterial tradition in particular shapes.
Area Scoring with Half Point Button: [See under Area Scoring.]
Parity.
Control Territory Scoring: Suitable for amateurs, short, simple,
logical, complete, clear, applicable, parity, four
playout move-sequences (conditional advantage), unvaluable dame
(objective advantage of this aspect), seki is a
natural consequence of the rules, immaterial tradition in
particular shapes.
Ikeda Territory I Scoring: Suitable for amateurs, short, simple,
logical, complete, clear, applicable, parity, only
one playout sequence, unvaluable dame (objective advantage of this
aspect), seki is a natural consequence of the
rules, immaterial tradition in particular shapes.
Life and Death Territory Scoring: Parity, unvaluable dame
(objective advantage of this aspect).
Step 3 - Combining Related Advantages
All Scoring Methods: Frequent pass fights do not occur.
AS = Area Scoring: Simple, logical, applicable, consistent
AS1/2 = Area Scoring with Half Point Button: [See under Area
Scoring.] Parity.
CTS = Control Territory Scoring: Simple, logical, applicable,
parity, unvaluable dame
ITS = Ikeda Territory I Scoring: Simple, logical, applicable,
parity, unvaluable dame
LDTS = Life and Death Territory Scoring: Parity, unvaluable dame.
Table of Important Advantages
ADVANTAGE
AS
AS1/2
CTS
ITS
LDTS
no pass fights
X
X?
X
X?
X
simple
X
X
X?
X
logical
X
X
X
X
applicable
X
X
X?
X
consistent
X
X?
parity
X
X
X
X
unvaluable dame
X
X
X
Conclusions
The advantages "logical" and "applicable" are essential. They
ought not to be replaced by "illogical" and
"inapplicable". Therefore Life and Death Territory Scoring drops out.
The following solutions might be possible for international rules:
Area Scoring, Area Scoring with Half Point Button,
Control Territory Scoring, or Ikeda Territory I Scoring.
According to current research, "consistent" and "unvaluable dame"
cannot be combined because rulesets with such
Basic Territory Scoring are known to have frequent pass fights.
Due to its 3 or 4 playout sequences, Control Territory Scoring is
not as simple and applicable during playout as
Area Scoring, Area Scoring with Half Point Button, or Ikeda
Territory I Scoring.
The question marks for Area Scoring with Half Point Button and
Ikeda Territory I Scoring indicate the highly
important necessiety to confirm and verify rarity of pass fights.
More information about the computer-go
mailing list