Well, I think this game precisely exemplifies the point I was trying to make and in a more practical way than my original example. Its a case where black asks white to prove stones are dead resulting in white playing moves that hurt his territory. If hypothetical play were the answer then black would ask white white to prove death, white would fill in those four points while black stares on hopelessly during the hypothetical play period and end up getting captured, the board would then return to original position and white would win. But according to the comments in the game, some 1d player reviewed it saying that since those four points had to be filled in real play before those black stones are declared dead those stones are not dead unless white pays that four point penalty, thus white losing the game. This is exactly the kind of situation where I would like to know the exact rules for.
And,[quote=ādavid265, post:37, topic:10342, full:trueā]
Several of the comments assume that the three top center black stones are dead. But I think there is aji there. The reason is that white has mild defects at G17, H13, and K13. By skillful play against a weak white, black might be able to cut off and capture some white stones, such as the D19 string. Not sure, since Iām only 16k.
[/quote]
well if that really is the case then this game no longer exemplifies my point, but I donāt think so.
Yeah that works as an answer for me, I donāt think I have significant questions after that,its kinda what I expected after all the discussion in this thread anyways, but I guess that is a sort of a nail in the coffin.
As far as my personal learning from having asked this question goes: I learnt that if you read that you can kill off opponent stones no matter what, no matter how convoluted the shape looks or how big the opponent group is it is wrong to actually kill the shape, but rather you just leave it there because killing it reduces your own points. I donāt know if that is a very obvious part of the ruleset, but it is non trivial to me that you leave groups un-dead to kill them in hypothetical play,that the rules mandate that unnecessary killing is wrong, although the game is predicated on killing stones, and all this requires a lot of reading.
edit: I donāt think this ruleset leaves any room for human agreement anymore (unless I am missing something)
Yes it requires reading and i know having these āundeadā stones in your face can be burdensome. Still you should keep in mind that what you are actually losing when unnecessarily killing isnt so much a single point, but rather a full move, which is far more detrimental unless the game is already over. So reading is still a necessity even in chinese rules.
yeah yeah - that is kinda obvious (I guess it was not when I started playing), what I mean is like you lose out more than just initiative to play elsewhere, you actually lose points for killing (although the initiative is worth more unless it is endgame)
I think this discussion has hashed everything out pretty thoroughly, but I thought Iād add a couple of points.
First, it might help not to think of Japanese rules the same way as Western rule sets. Japanese rules came about through centuries of tradition and are meant to make the game aesthetic and challenging. I donāt think the Japanese rules were even written down in a semi-rigorous form until the 20th century. So theyāre a bit different from the mathematically precise rules we Westerners prefer, such as the AGA rules. The Japanese rules assume a certain amount of decorum, common sense and, as others said, honor. If someone is uncomfortable with such rules, they can play AGA or Chinese rules. But because Japan has such a long, honored tradition of making Go a great art and spreading it to the West, most people prefer Japanese rules.
Secondly, the rules do leave room for human agreement. In fact, Japanese rules are all about human agreement. If Black doesnāt think his three stones are dead in OPās original example, then Black needs to do something to make them into a living shape before passing. He must go on the attack and White needs to decide whether and how she will respond. By saying pass, itās implied that Black is giving up on those three stones. It would be silly for Black to claim that three isolated stones are somehow alive. No reading is necessary, no hypothetical play; three isolated stones simply are not alive and both players know it. If Black does not know this, then Black would not pass and the game would still be continuing.
To sum it up, Iāve played go for 8 years now and have never, ever had a disagreement over the score. I know it happens with Japanese rules (the second example shows this), but letās face it, it is very rare, except maybe for beginners.
I really agree on what you said.
Unfortunately, thereās no āhonor estimatorā available for online go games yet.
So, Japanese rules can be exploited somehow by trolls, who simply refuse to agree on the final score, by resuming the game indefinitely, and hoping for the opponent to timeout or to get tired and resign.
Itās almost impossible for this to happen IRL go games: someone who doesnāt agree on the final result is either a beginner (and then you simply go on playing until he/she understands), or simply a moron (and then thereās no problem in letting him believe he wonā¦ and never play him again).
Iād go on resigning in online games as well, just to avoid waste of time. But usually in online games you should take ranking into consideration: if you won, you should rank up, otherwise youāre a bit a āsandbaggerā. And at the same time the troll shouldnāt rank up.
Fortunately I have met very few trolls like thatā¦ and almost none on OGS.
I am glad to see that honor has been translated from real life to the net go players, somehow.
