Are we using Japanese rules? It would seem we are, counting territory, and with 6.5 komi. Can I therefore declare it dead? It's an unusual situation, since in order to kill it outright I would have to play many moves inside my own territory in order to remove ko threats. This is not a problem with area counting, but it is with territory counting.
I assume there is an appeal if an opponent refuses to accept such a situation, yes? I don't imagine it to be a problem in my current game with a bent four in the corner, just curious in general. I can see a similar situation arising regarding the lack of seki recognition in the software.
A reference, for those unfamiliar with this situation:
[game;id:1242926;move:225]
Area vs Territory counting systems roughly work out the same, but this is one where, if it was required to play out, Territory would take a hit. With Area, I can fill in all my ko threats, then play R19, followed by S18. With no ko threats available to White, I capture on the next move. This is why under Japanese Territory counting, the position is considered dead for White.
We play with the Japanese rules, so your opponent should agree that his group is dead. If he doesn't, well, you can fill your ko treats and still win, no?
In this game, yes, I could still win, but I was asking more generally. My opponent in this specific game recognizes the group as dead, so it doesn't matter. Some rulesets force you to play it out, so I was asking clarification on which this site supported.
Am I to understand there are situations where, one of the opponent's groups is theoretically dead, and your territory at that point is sufficient for victory, but were you forced to actually kill the theoretically dead group, you'd not have enough territory for victory?
If so, you've clearly *not* got the victory by any sane definition of victory. (Apart from George W. "Mission Accomplished" Bush's.)
Phil, territory scoring is a derived ruleset that's supposed to approximate the original area scoring. To that end, a group that's dead is dead, even when not picked up. Some rulesets allow for playing out disputes where each pass forfeits a point, so that it is not generally profitable to falsely claim something is alive. That is not implemented on LG, so we are dependent on people accepting the on-board death of dead groups.
Heh. I don't mind the AGA ruleset. What about it is particularly insane? The pass stone does in fact work as compensation for playing inside territory. I wish I had understood this (and the bent four) situation a bit better in a rated tourney I played years ago. I knew "it's dead" but didn't quite understand how or why, so I tried to play it out. Whoops, ko!
And hey, what about Ing rules? I seem to recall some goofiness about them, but can't quite remember specifics. But I believe those allow custom placement of handicap stones, much like Chinese. I played a tourney once and made corner enclosures rather than taking hoshi. Everybody was so used to placing standard handi stones, I got a few "oh! /ohh..../" reactions. :)
In fact, Bent Four in The Corner is not always dead, as you cannot always fill your ko threats. That's way if it's always dead in Japanses Rules is because it is enforced by one insane rule that says specifically "bent four in the corner is dead".
That, and many other insane things, is the reason why I always recommend AGA rules.
When I was first introduced to what .jp scoring meant by actual example (just a couple of days ago), the first thing that went through my mind was that .jp was a bit braindead. However, on stating that, I was told a little bit more about it, and it suddenly looked better than .cn scoring, as it encouraged parsimony. The best players would efficiently secure their areas with fewer stones.
But yes, its sanity is indeed called into question. And Gregorio's post 25 hours back has convinced me that its only answer is to drool on the board.
That's why I like the pass stone of the AGA ruleset, as it combines the convenience of territory counting with the advantages of area counting. Who knew we Americans could do something right?
Ing has to be the most annoying, tho'. You need to start the game with an exact count of stones, then you fill in your area at the end. The loser is the person with extra stones. The boxes break all the time, and lack the elegance of a nice wood bowl.
Little Golem