Is this Seki?

[qnpnpmqppnp]

@calebjdastrup

The ko in a bent four complicates things a little bit, but it is the same basic reasoning.

Well:

• I see where you’re coming from, but the fact that those stones are not necessarily dead, and yet considered as such, makes it fundamentally different from my perspective.
• In any case, I also believe that the hypothetical play under Japanese rules is a very unintuitive and inelegant solution; a situation highlighted by the fact that it’s never properly implemented online given how cumbersome it is.

@Animiral

The idea that the groups can be considered separately without looking at the whole board is generally an intuitive simplification.

An endless debate I guess, but I very much disagree with that as well.

[calebjdastrup]

@qnpnpmqppnp

I see where you’re coming from, but the fact that those stones are not necessarily dead, and yet considered as such, makes it fundamentally different from my perspective.

How are they any less dead than a one-eyed group? They can eventually be captured (remove all ko threats, then start the ko) and the capturing moves can be delayed as long as desired. Isn’t that what it means to be dead?

@qnpnpmqppnp

In any case, I also believe that the hypothetical play under Japanese rules is a very unintuitive and inelegant solution; a situation highlighted by the fact that it’s never properly implemented online given how cumbersome it is.

I agree, and personally prefer area scoring. I think some sort of an encore at temperature 0 would be good for online territory scoring (“Our systems have detected a scoring disagreement. You may now play in your territory without cost. Please capture all stones you consider to be dead.”).

[qnpnpmqppnp]

@calebjdastrup

How are they any less dead than a one-eyed group?

Strictly speaking, I agree you can always kill them if you’re prepared to pay whatever price is necessary.

In case of unremovable ko threats, the price, however, may be high enough that you’re better-off letting those stones live; it’s in that sense that I consider them alive in certain circumstances under “normal” rules.

[Sadaharu]

@qnpnpmqppnp

In case of unremovable ko threats, the price, however, may be high enough that you’re better-off letting those stones live

What if it’s a dead group that’s not bent four but you need to spend 30 moves to prove it’s dead? Is that high enough of a cost?

[qnpnpmqppnp]

This goes back to the fundamental difference in my view between being unconditionally dead and conditionally dead.

But this debate isn’t very useful anyway. I severely dislike the way bent-4 is handled, and arguing that it should be interpreted as a special case of the hypothetical play mechanism would not change my mind as I also severely dislike that.