Flaws of the World Amateur Go Championship 1979 Rules

Flaws related to the following are not (!) mentioned: tournament rules, resignation, counting mechanics, descriptions of the playing material, diagrams of the rules, diagrams of the precedents (except when concerning rules for these diagrams).

Contents

• Overview
• Examples
• Group(s) of Stone(s)
• Surround
• Position
• Eye, False Eye
• Life, Seki, Death, Territory
• Rules Restricting Repetition
• Flaws Related to Hypothetical Alternate Play
• Pass, End of the Game
• Neutral Points, Necessary Defensive Moves inside Territory
• Precedents
• Miscellaneous Flaws
• Flaws Sorted by Nature

Overview

• Each of the potentially simple terms "group of stones", "surround", and "position" is used in different meanings throughout the rules text. This makes it difficult already to understand these basic terms. Whenever such a term is used, first one has to check in which likely meaning it is used. The same has to be said about the higher level term "eye".
• The descriptions of "eye" are so ambiguous that almost all players have a strategic understanding of this term that is more profound than the description.
• The rules try to use shapes of "eyes" for defining the concept of two-eye-formation. This fails because there is an arbitrarily great number of different shapes but only one concept of two-eye-formation.
• The terms and rules related to life, seki, death, or territory are very ambiguous, confusing, undefined, wrong, or contracting Go wisdom. Especially the description of the term and the rules for "seki" contradict Go wisdom for several reasons.
• The rules for restricting repetition and the terms therein are ambiguous, misleading, or undefined.
• The rules hide almost all of the nature of hypothetical alternate play behind grammar, like e.g. in the word "cannot". Definitions of "hypothetical move-sequence" and "hypothetical strategy" are missing entirely. The rules fail to describe how hypothetical alternate play works and how to execute it in practice despite its extremely great procedural complexity.
• The terms and rules about ending the game are confusing, unclear, or ambiguous. The move type "pass" is mostly missing.
• The rules about neutral points and necessary defensive moves inside territory are incomplete or contradict Go wisdom. The related terms are undefined.
• The precedents are superfluous, incomplete, inapplicable, irrelevant, difficult, unnatural, ambiguous, unclear, confusing, contradicting, or undefined. The Nihon Kiin is assigned an undue role. The rule about long cycles creates undecidable strategy.

Examples

Example 1

. # # # # # #
# # # . O O O
O O O O O O .

Example 2

. # # #
# # . O
O O O O
O . # #
# # # .

Example 3

O O O # .
O . O # .
O O # # #

Group(s) of Stone(s)

Preliminary Note

Concluding Summary

The Flaws

• Flaw 001
• §9
• The term "group of stones" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "When, during the game, a player has occupied all but one of the points adjacent to an enemy stone or group of stones, the enemy’s stone or group of stones is said to be in ‘atari’."
• The term "group of stones" is undefined. It is unclear whether the same as or a different meaning than in other paragraphs shall be associated with "group". Therefore one has to speak of "§9-group".
• Flaw 002
• §10
• The term "group" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "When a player plays on the last point adjacent to an enemy stone or group that is in atari as described above, he must remove the enemy stone or group from the board. This is called ‘capturing’."
• The term "group" is undefined. Although one might guess that it is used in the same meaning as "group of stones" in §9, it is unclear whether the same as or a different meaning than in other paragraphs shall be associated with "group". Therefore one has to speak of "§10-group".
• Flaw 003
• §16
• The term "group of stones" in §16(i) or "group" in §16(ii) is undefined.
• Relevant citation: §16(i): "A group of stones is termed ‘alive’ if it possesses at least two eyes such as specified in paragraph 15(i), or if it can secure at least two eyes for itself through alternate play.". §16(ii): "A group which has two eyes, one or both of which are false, but which cannot be captured because of the restrictions in rule 12 is also alive, the preceding paragraph notwithstanding."
• The term "group of stones" in §16(i) or "group" in §16(ii), respectively, is undefined. It is unclear whether the same as or a different meaning than in other paragraphs shall be associated with "group". Therefore one has to speak of "§16-group".
• Flaw 004
• §17
• The term "group" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "A position in which there two opposing groups without eyes or with one eye apiece but in which neither side can move first and capture the other is called a ‘seki’."
• The term "group" is undefined. It is unclear whether the same as or a different meaning than in other paragraphs shall be associated with "group". Therefore one has to speak of "§17-group".
• Flaw 005
• §18
• The term "group of stones" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "Groups of stones which possess, or for which alternate play will produce, shapes other than those specified in the preceding two rules are termed ‘dead’."
• The term "group of stones" is undefined. It is unclear whether the same as or a different meaning than in other paragraphs shall be associated with "group". Therefore one has to speak of "§18-group".
• Flaw 006
• §24
• The term "group" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "If there enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki, the player may capture them, force his opponent to play as many additional stones as necessary, and capture them also, adding them to his prisoners, as long as this does not destroy the seki pattern."
• The term "group" is undefined. It is unclear whether the same as or a different meaning than in other paragraphs shall be associated with "group". Therefore one has to speak of "§24-group".

Surround

Summary

The Flaws

• Flaw 007
• §12
• The term "surrounded" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: §12(1): "A move surrounded by enemy stones". §12(2): "The last remaining vacant point of a connected group of points surrounded by enemy stones, when all the other points of the group have been occupied."
• The term "surrounded" is undefined. The probable meaning here is: "as a string adjacent via lines and only adjacent via lines to enemy stones". In other paragraphs, different meanings of "surround" occur. Therefore one has to speak of "§12-surrounded".
• Flaw 008
• §15(i)
• The term "surrounding" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "A player possesses an eye at a point when he has occupied at least seven of the eight points surrounding it with his own stones, or when alternate play by both sides would produce such a pattern. However, to possess an eye at one of the corner points (A-1, A-19, T-1, T-19) a player must have occupied, or be able through alternate play to occupy, all three of the points surrounding it, and for an eye at a non-corner point on the edge all five surrounding points are necessary."
• The term "surrounding" is undefined. The probable meaning here is: "horizontally, vertically, or diagonally adjacent point". In other paragraphs, different meanings of "surround" occur. Therefore one has to speak of "§15(i)-surrounding".
• Flaw 009
• §15(ii)
• The term "surrounded" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "A point which a player has surrounded in a pattern other than those specified in the preceding paragraph".
• The term "surrounded" is undefined. The most probable guesses of the intended meaning here are either "on somehow nearby points" or "§15(i)-surrounding". In other paragraphs, different meanings of "surround" occur. Therefore here one has to speak of "§15(ii)-surrounded".
• Flaw 010
• §19/sentence 1
• The term "surrounded" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "Those points on the board which a player has surrounded with living stones of his own and on which his opponent cannot live are called ‘territory’."
• The term "surrounded" is undefined. The probable meaning here is: "as a connected set of points adjacent via lines and only adjacent via lines to alive stones of a particular player". In other sentences or paragraphs, different meanings of "surround" occur. Therefore one has to speak of "§19/sentence 1-surrounded".
• Flaw 011
• §19/sentence 2
• The term "surrounded" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "Each such point counts as one point of territory, except that points which are surrounded by stones alive in a seki are not counted as territory."
• The term "surrounded" is undefined. The probable meaning here is: "as a connected set of points adjacent via lines and only adjacent via lines to stones that are alive in seki and are of either one player, the enemy, or the player or the enemy". In other sentences or paragraphs, different meanings of "surround" occur. Therefore one has to speak of "§19/sentence 2-surrounded".
• Flaw 012
• §23
• The term "surrounded" is undefined. Its apparent meaning is a mistake.
• Relevant citation: "When the game is finished, each player removes any dead enemy stones that are surrounded by his own live stones".
• The term "surrounded" is undefined. Probably the meaning here should be corrected as: "as a connected set of points with dead enemy stones on adjacent via lines and only adjacent via lines to points that are vacant or have alive stones of a particular player on" (note: vacant or alive stones on). The rules text's actual apparent meaning is: "as a connected set of points with dead enemy stones on adjacent via lines and only adjacent via lines to points with alive stones of a particular player on" (note: alive stones on). However, this is a mistake because such cannot exist when the game is finished since before such enemy stones would already have been captured according to §10. In other sentences or paragraphs, different meanings of "surround" occur. Therefore one has to speak of "§23-surrounded".

Position

Preliminary Note

Summary

• "§13(i)-position",
• "§13(iii)-position",
• "§13(iv)-position",
• "§17(i)-position",
• "'position' in text-paragraph (2) of the section 'Ko questions and three points without capturing' of the rules-paragraph 'Nihon Ki-in Precedents'",
• "'position' in text-paragraph (3) of the section 'Ko questions and three points without capturing' of the rules-paragraph 'Nihon Ki-in Precedents'",
• "'position' in text-paragraph (4) of the section 'Ko questions and three points without capturing' of the rules-paragraph 'Nihon Ki-in Precedents'".

The Flaws

• Flaw 013
• §13(i)
• The term "position" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "A position in which both players can alternately capture and recapture one stone apiece is called a ‘ko’."
• The term "position" is undefined. Shall it refer to the whole board configuration or to exactly two adjacent points? If the latter, which two? There might be more than one such pair of points on the board. In other paragraphs, different meanings of "position" occur. Therefore here one has to speak of "§13(i)-position".
• Flaw 014
• §13(iii)
• The term "position" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "The purpose of this restriction is to prevent the endless repetition of the same position that would occur if recapture took place without making ko threats."
• The term "position" is undefined. In other paragraphs, different meanings of "position" occur. Therefore here one has to speak of "§13(iii)-position".
• Flaw 015
• §13(iv)
• The term "positions" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "In those rare cases of triple or quadruple ko, in ko-like patterns such as eternal life, and in other abnormal positions"
• The term "positions" is undefined. In other paragraphs, different meanings of "position" occur. Therefore here one has to speak of "§13(iv)-position".
• Flaw 016
• §17(i)
• The term "position" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "A position in which there are two opposing groups without eyes or with one eye apiece but in which neither side can move first and capture the other is called a ‘seki’."
• The term "position" is undefined. In other paragraphs, different meanings of "position" occur. Therefore here one has to speak of "§17(i)-position".
• Flaw 017
• text-paragraph (2) of the section 'Ko questions and three points without capturing' of the rules-paragraph 'Nihon Ki-in Precedents'
• The term "position" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "The three-points-without-capturing positions shown are to be resolved by actual play."
• The term "position" is undefined. In other paragraphs, different meanings of "position" occur. Therefore here one has to speak of "'position' in text-paragraph (2) of the section 'Ko questions and three points without capturing' of the rules-paragraph 'Nihon Ki-in Precedents'".
• Flaw 018
• text-paragraph (3) of the section 'Ko questions and three points without capturing' of the rules-paragraph 'Nihon Ki-in Precedents'
• The term "position" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "If a triple, quadruple, quintuple, etc. ko, a round-robin ko, an eternal life, or other abnormal pattern arises and the same board position is made repeatedly with neither side willing to give in, the game ends without result."
• The term "position" is undefined. In other paragraphs, different meanings of "position" occur. Therefore here one has to speak of "'position' in text-paragraph (3) of the section 'Ko questions and three points without capturing' of the rules-paragraph 'Nihon Ki-in Precedents'".
• Flaw 019
• text-paragraph (4) of the section 'Ko questions and three points without capturing' of the rules-paragraph 'Nihon Ki-in Precedents'
• The term "position" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "In a thousand-year ko, if neither side is willing to start the ko, the player who is able by capturing and connecting to make the position a seki shall do so."
• The term "position" is undefined. In other paragraphs, different meanings of "position" occur. Therefore here one has to speak of "'position' in text-paragraph (4) of the section 'Ko questions and three points without capturing' of the rules-paragraph 'Nihon Ki-in Precedents'".

Eye, False Eye

Concluding Summary

Defining seki is complicated. If the problems of defining hypothetical strategy are ignored for the moment, then defining independent life is comparatively easy: One or several strings of the same player form a "two-eye-formation" if and only if there are exactly two particular vacant points so that each of the strings is adjacent via lines to each of the two vacant points, none of the strings is adjacent via lines to another vacant point, and each of the two vacant points is adjacent via lines only to the strings. If hypothetical strategy is now used as if it were well-defined, then a string of a player is "independently-alive" if hypothetical strategy leads to a two-eye-formation on at least one point of the string.

It is superfluous for the rules to define eye, false eyes, or other eye space patterns. For independent life, it is sufficient to refer to the concept of two-eye-formation. From that, all the superfluous eye terms can be derived. However, the rules try the opposite: First define superfluous eye terms and then derive the concept of two-eye-formation. There are arbitrarily many eye shape patterns but only one concept of two-eye-formation. Hence not surprisingly the rules fail completely.

To distinguish different usage clearly, one has to speak of §14-eye, §15(i)-eye, §15(ii)-false-eye, 16(i)-eye, 16(ii)-eye, §17(i)-eye, §24-eye.

The Flaws

• Flaw 020
• §14
• The term "eye" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "A point on which a player may not play because of rule 12 is called an ’eye’."
• The term "eye" is ambiguous because §12 is ambiguous. To distinguish "eye" here from "§15(i)-eye", one has to speak of "§14-eye".
• Flaw 021
• §14
• The term "eye" is unclear.
• Relevant citation: "A point on which a player may not play because of rule 12 is called an ’eye’."
• It is unclear whether an "eye" exists for both players or for only one and which particular player. E.g., if a group of 7 or 8 stones of the same player are horizontally, vertically, or diagonally adjacent to one vacant point and if this is the only vacant point of these stones as a group, is this vacant point an eye for both players, an eye only for the player of these stones, or an eye only for his opponent?
• Flaw 022
• §15(i)
• The term "eye" is unclear.
• Relevant citation: "A player possesses an eye at a point when he has occupied at least seven of the eight points surrounding it with his own stones, or when alternate play by both sides would produce such a pattern. However, to possess an eye at one of the corner points (A-1, A-19, T-1, T-19) a player must have occupied, or be able through alternate play to occupy, all three of the points surrounding it, and for an eye at a non-corner point on the edge all five surrounding points are necessary."
• The term "eye" is a term that is different from the "eye" term of §14. To distinguish both, one has to speak of "§14-eye" and of "§15(i)-eye". Additionally, there is the specific distinction that a "§15(i)-eye" is possessed by a particular player while for a "§14-eye" it is unclear whether it exists for both players or for only one and which particular player.
• Flaw 023
• §15(i)
• The term "eye" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "A player possesses an eye at a point when he has occupied at least seven of the eight points surrounding it with his own stones, or when alternate play by both sides would produce such a pattern. However, to possess an eye at one of the corner points (A-1, A-19, T-1, T-19) a player must have occupied, or be able through alternate play to occupy, all three of the points surrounding it, and for an eye at a non-corner point on the edge all five surrounding points are necessary."
• In sentence 1 of the cited rules text, it is undefined whether a "§15(i)-eye" has to be either a vacant point, a point occupied by a stone of the player, or a point that is either vacant or occupied by a stone of the player. In part 1 of sentence 2 of the cited rules text, the same problem occurs. Also in part 2 of sentence 2 of the cited rules text (starting with "and for an eye"), the same problem occurs.
• Flaw 024
• §15(i)
• The purpose of the term "eye" is unclear.
• Relevant citation: "A player possesses an eye at a point when he has occupied at least seven of the eight points surrounding it with his own stones, or when alternate play by both sides would produce such a pattern. However, to possess an eye at one of the corner points (A-1, A-19, T-1, T-19) a player must have occupied, or be able through alternate play to occupy, all three of the points surrounding it, and for an eye at a non-corner point on the edge all five surrounding points are necessary."
• The purpose of the term "§15(i)-eye" is unclear in patterns like, e.g., the following: A group of 7 or 8 stones of the same player are horizontally, vertically, or diagonally adjacent to one vacant point and this is the only vacant point of these stones as a group. A group of 3 stones of the same player are horizontally, vertically, or diagonally adjacent to one vacant corner point and this is the only vacant point of these stones as a group. A group of 5 stones of the same player are horizontally, vertically, or diagonally adjacent to one vacant non-corner edge point and this is the only vacant point of these stones as a group.
• Flaw 025
• §15(i)
• The term "such a pattern" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "A player possesses an eye at a point when he has occupied at least seven of the eight points surrounding it with his own stones, or when alternate play by both sides would produce such a pattern."
• The term "such a pattern" is ambiguous especially because "§15(i)-surrounding" is undefined.
• Flaw 026
• §15(ii)
• The terms "pattern other than those specified in the preceding paragraph" and "one of those patterns" are ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "A point which a player has surrounded in a pattern other than those specified in the preceding paragraph and which he cannot bring into one of those patterns through alternate play is called a ‘false eye’."
• Each of the terms "pattern other than those specified in the preceding paragraph" and "one of those patterns" is ambiguous because the preceding paragraph, §15(i), is ambiguous.
• Flaw 027
• §15(ii)
• The purpose of the term "false eye" is unclear.
• Relevant citation: "A point which a player has surrounded in a pattern other than those specified in the preceding paragraph and which he cannot bring into one of those patterns through alternate play is called a ‘false eye’."
• The purpose of the term "false eye" is unclear in patterns like, e.g., the following: The point in question is in a snapback and adjacent to a string that is called capturable-2 under the Japanese 2003 Rules.
• Flaw 028
• §15(ii)
• The term "false eye" is unclear.
• Relevant citation: "A point which a player has surrounded in a pattern other than those specified in the preceding paragraph and which he cannot bring into one of those patterns through alternate play is called a ‘false eye’."
• It is unclear why the term "false eye" does not clearly describe exactly what common Go terminology considers to be a "false eye". To avoid confusion, one has to call the term in this rule more precisely "§15(ii)-false-eye". Thereby it is clear that a "§15(ii)-false-eye" does not necessarily intend to be exactly the same as what common Go terminology considers to be a "false eye". If, however, §15(ii) was meant to achieve the opposite, then it ought to be written unequivocally and accordingly.
• Flaw 029
• §16(i)
• The term "eye" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "if it can secure at least two eyes for itself through alternate play."
• The term "eye" is undefined because it is unclear whether it refers to either a) §14-eye, b) §15(i)-eye, or c) §14-eye or §15(i)-eye. Therefore one has to speak of "16(i)-eye".
• Flaw 030
• §16(ii)
• The term "eye" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "A group which has two eyes, one or both of which are false, but which cannot be captured because of the restrictions in rule 12"
• The term "eye" is undefined because it is unclear whether it refers to either a) §14-eye or §15(ii)-false-eye, b) §15(i)-eye or §15(ii)-false-eye, or c) §14-eye or §15(i)-eye or §15(ii)-false-eye. Therefore one has to speak of "16(ii)-eye".
• Flaw 031
• §17(i)
• The term "eye" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "A position in which there are two opposing groups without eyes or with one eye apiece but in which neither side can move first and capture the other is called a ‘seki’."
• The term "eye" is ambiguous because it is unclear whether it refers to either §14-eye, §15(i)-eye, §15(ii)-false-eye, or any particular combination of these terms. Therefore one has to speak of "§17(i)-eye".
• Flaw 032
• §24
• The term "eye" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "If there are enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki"
• The term "eye" is ambiguous because it is unclear whether it refers to either §14-eye, §15(i)-eye, §15(ii)-false-eye, or any particular combination of these terms. Therefore one has to speak of "§24-eye".

Life, Seki, Death, Territory

Concluding Summary

This is a very short summary. However, the frequent characteristics ambiguous, confusing, undefined, wrong, and contracting Go wisdom indicate an almost total failure of the rules about central terms of Life and Death Territory Scoring.

The Flaws

• Flaw 033
• Important flaw.
• §16(i)
• The term "alive" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "A group of stones is termed ‘alive’ if it possesses at least two eyes such as specified in paragraph 15(i), or if it can secure at least two eyes for itself through alternate play."
• The §16(i)-part of the term "alive" is ambiguous because "group of stones" is undefined, §15(i) is ambiguous, "can secure" is undefined, "eye" in "can secure at least two eyes" is undefined, and "alternating play" is ambiguous.
• Flaw 034
• §16(ii)
• The term "alive" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "A group which has two eyes, one or both of which are false, but which cannot be captured because of the restrictions in rule 12 is also alive, the preceding paragraph notwithstanding."
• The §16(ii)-part of the term "alive" is ambiguous because "group" is undefined, "eye" is undefined, "[false eye]" is ambiguous, and "cannot" is undefined.
• Flaw 035
• §17(i)
• The term "seki" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "A position in which there are two opposing groups without eyes or with one eye apiece but in which neither side can move first and capture the other is called a ‘seki’."
• The term "seki" is ambiguous because "position", "group", "eye", and "can" are undefined.
• Flaw 036
• Important flaw.
• §17(i)
• The term "seki" contradicts Go wisdom.
• Relevant citation: "A position in which there are two opposing groups without eyes or with one eye apiece but in which neither side can move first and capture the other is called a ‘seki’."
• The description of the term "seki" contradicts Go wisdom: E.g.,
1. sekis are known with several instead of just two so called groups,
2. sekis are known where capture is possible but where either side moving first does not get any advantage but only the constant, same local score on the initial seki points,
3. sekis are known in that it is advantageous to capture some enemy stone(s) (in fact, §24 is about such),
4. sekis are known in that it is disadvantageous to capture some enemy stone(s) but therefore those sekis are not sekis because neither side moving first could capture anything of the other side but therefore those sekis are sekis because it is disadvantageous for the scoring result to move first in the seki.
• Flaw 037
• §17(ii)
• The usage of "alive" is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "In a seki both sides’ stones are considered to be alive."
• It is confusing that the type of "alive", as specified here, is not the "Life" §16.
• Flaw 038
• §18
• The term "shape" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "Groups of stones which possess, or for which alternate play will produce, shapes other than those specified in the preceding two rules are termed ‘dead’."
• The term "shape" is undefined. Does it have something to do with points, stones, or stone colour? What exactly?
• Flaw 039
• §18
• The term "dead" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "Groups of stones which possess, or for which alternate play will produce, shapes other than those specified in the preceding two rules are termed ‘dead’."
• The term "dead" is ambiguous because "group of stones" is undefined, "alternate play" is ambiguous", "will" is undefined, "shape" is undefined, and §16 and §17 are ambiguous.
• Flaw 040
• Important flaw.
• §19
• The term "territory" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "Those points on the board which a player has surrounded with living stones of his own and on which his opponent cannot live are called ‘territory’."
• The term "territory" is ambiguous because "surrounded" is undefined, "living", which stands for "alive", is ambiguous, "cannot" is undefined, and "live", which refers to "alive", is ambiguous.
• Flaw 041
• §19
• The term "point of territory" is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "Each such point counts as one point of territory"
• The term "point of territory" is confusing because everywhere else in the rules "point" is used in the meaning of "intersection" rather than "counting unit".
• Flaw 042
• §19
• The concept "to count as territory" is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "Each such point counts as one point of territory", "not counted as territory"
• The concept "to count as [point of] territory" is confusing because it is used with or without the phrase "point of".
• Flaw 043
• §19
• Excluding seki from counting as territory is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "Those points on the board which a player has surrounded with living stones of his own and on which his opponent cannot live are called ‘territory’. Each such point counts as one point of territory, except that points which are surrounded by stones alive in a seki are not counted as territory."
• It is confusing that "territory" is first introduced in general for points surrounded with alive stones but then excluded for counting points surrounded with alive stones in a seki. This is confusing because it is artificial and superfluous to make such an exception, especially since sekis do not even occur in every game and asymmetrical sekis where the score is affected at all are rather scarce.
• Flaw 044
• §19
• Territory in seki is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "Those points on the board which a player has surrounded with living stones of his own and on which his opponent cannot live are called ‘territory’. Each such point counts as one point of territory, except that points which are surrounded by stones alive in a seki are not counted as territory."
• It is confusing that the rules contradict the myth that Japanese rules would not have any territory in seki: Sentence 1 of the cited rule allows territory in seki. According to sentence 2 of the cited rule, this territory in seki is not counted. However, it is territory, even though not counted.
• Flaw 045
• §19
• The coexistence of counted and of not counted territory is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "Those points on the board which a player has surrounded with living stones of his own and on which his opponent cannot live are called ‘territory’. Each such point counts as one point of territory, except that points which are surrounded by stones alive in a seki are not counted as territory."
• It is confusing that there is territory that is counted and that there is territory that is not counted.
• Flaw 046
• §19
• Usage of "those" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "Those points on the board which a player has surrounded with living stones of his own and on which his opponent cannot live"
• Usage of "those" is ambiguous. Which points are meant? Only those where opposing would necessarily appear? Also their necessarily appearing eyes? All points of some of the players region (or regions considered together?) where at least some opposing stones would live?
• Flaw 047
• §19
• The condition "on which his opponent cannot live" contradicts tradition.
• Relevant citation: "Those points on the board which a player has surrounded with living stones of his own and on which his opponent cannot live are called ‘territory’."
• The condition "on which his opponent cannot live" contradicts the traditional maxim that under Japanese rules during scoring "life" is always in some sense a locally restricted concept. In the condition, an attempt to establish alive stones in one region and a hypothetical ko fight might lead to establishing alive stones in another region. Contradicting tradition is a flaw for the World Amateur Go Championship 1979 Rules because their whole design is an attempt to preserve Japanese rules tradition.
• Flaw 048
• §19
• Usage of "living" and "live" is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "Those points on the board which a player has surrounded with living stones of his own and on which his opponent cannot live are called ‘territory’. Each such point counts as one point of territory, except that points which are surrounded by stones alive in a seki are not counted as territory."
• It is confusing that "living", "live", and "alive" are used instead of only "alive" consistently.
• Flaw 049
• §19
• The rule is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "Those points on the board which a player has surrounded with living stones of his own and on which his opponent cannot live are called ‘territory’. Each such point counts as one point of territory, except that points which are surrounded by stones alive in a seki are not counted as territory."
• The rule is ambiguous because "surrounded" is undefined, "living" is ambiguous, "cannot" is undefined, "live" is ambiguous, "point" is used with two different meanings, "alive" is ambiguous, "seki" is ambiguous.
• Flaw 050
• §23
• Usage of "live" is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "When the game is finished, each player removes any dead enemy stones that are surrounded by his own live stones"
• It is confusing that "live" instead of consistently only "alive" is used.
• Flaw 051
• §23
• §11 and §23 contradict each other.
• Relevant citation: §11: "Stones that have been removed from the board in accordance with the preceding rule are called ‘prisoners’." §23: "[...] adds them to the prisoners mentioned in rule 11, and uses these to fill in his opponent’s territory."
• The management of stones added to the prisoners and the usage of prisoners, both occurring in the cited part of §23, contradict the definition of prisoners in §11, which does not include any stones added according to §23.
• Flaw 052
• §23
• The rule is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "When the game is finished, each player removes any dead enemy stones that are surrounded by his own live stones, adds them to the prisoners mentioned in rule 11, and uses these to fill in his opponent’s territory."
• The rule is ambiguous because "dead" is ambiguous, "surrounded" is undefined, "live" is ambiguous, and the definition of "prisoners" is incomplete.
• Flaw 053
• §24
• The term "inside" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki"
• The term "inside" is undefined. On 2006-04-10, a formal definition of the concept of "inside", when related to life and death status, still has not been discovered yet despite thousands of hours of related research. The authors of the World Amateur Go Championship 1979 Rules were naive to assume clarity.
• Flaw 054
• §24
• "possessed" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki"
• "possessed" is undefined. Here this is relevant because here "possessed" might mean more than what is conveyed by common language; the precise topological location plays a role here. In contrast, this problem does not occur for usage of the word "possessed" in §15(i) (where the word is consistently used in the same construction), in §16(i) (that refers to §15(i)), and in §18 (where just the common language meaning is used).
• Flaw 055
• §24
• The nature of "may capture them" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "If there are enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki, the player may capture them, force his opponent to play as many additional stones as necessary, and capture them also, adding them to his prisoners, as long as this does not destroy the seki pattern."
• The nature of "may capture them" is undefined. Is this done by ordinary moves? Is this done by alternate play? Are passes available? Do successive passes end it? Is it mandatory?
• Flaw 056
• §24
• The nature of "force [his opponent] to play as many additional stones as necessary" is unclear.
• Relevant citation: "If there are enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki, the player may capture them, force his opponent to play as many additional stones as necessary, and capture them also, adding them to his prisoners, as long as this does not destroy the seki pattern."
• The exact nature of "force [his opponent] to play as many additional stones as necessary" is unclear. Is this done by alternate play? Are passes available? Do successive passes end it? Is it mandatory?
• Flaw 057
• §24
• The term "destroy" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "If there are enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki, the player may capture them, force his opponent to play as many additional stones as necessary, and capture them also, adding them to his prisoners, as long as this does not destroy the seki pattern."
• The term "destroy" is undefined. Is only the pattern relevant? Is the seki status relevant? Is the effect on the score relevant?
• Flaw 058
• §24
• The term "pattern" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "If there are enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki, the player may capture them, force his opponent to play as many additional stones as necessary, and capture them also, adding them to his prisoners, as long as this does not destroy the seki pattern."
• The term "pattern" is undefined. Are points relevant? Are stones relevant? Are stone colours relevant? Is the relative location and orientation on the board relevant?
• Flaw 059
• §24
• The rule is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "If there are enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki, the player may capture them, force his opponent to play as many additional stones as necessary, and capture them also, adding them to his prisoners, as long as this does not destroy the seki pattern."
• The rule is ambiguous because "inside" is undefined, "eye" is ambiguous, "possessed" is undefined, "group" is undefined, "alive in seki" is ambiguous, the nature of "may capture them" is undefined, the exact nature of "force [his opponent] to play as many additional stones as necessary" is unclear, "destroy" is undefined, "seki" is ambiguous, and "pattern" is undefined.
• Flaw 060
• §24
• The rule is superfluous.
• Relevant citation: §19: "points which are surrounded by stones alive in a seki are not counted as territory", §24: "If there are enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki, the player may capture them, force his opponent to play as many additional stones as necessary, and capture them also, adding them to his prisoners, as long as this does not destroy the seki pattern."
• It is unclear why this rule is not omitted. It is superfluous because during regular alternate play the player can play the same moves as they can in the artificial seki encore. They capture the same numbers of prisoners. Stones remaining on the board and added in sekis that remain sekis do not alter the total number of counted territory points due to §19, i.e. filling some of them does not have an effect here.
• Flaw 061
• §27
• The phrase "the counting of territory" is unclear.
• Relevant citation: "Questions that arise concerning rule 13(iv), concerning life, death, and seki, concerning whether or not it is necessary to defend inside one’s territory, concerning the counting of territory, etc. are to be settled in accordance with the Nihon Ki-in’s precedents given below."
• The phrase "the counting of territory" is unclear. In view of the generally low level of precision about the choice of words in the rules text, it is possible that the phrase refers to either a) the definition of territory, b) the mechanical counting procedure, or c) definition of territory or the mechanical counting procedure.

Rules Restricting Repetition

Specification

Summary

The Flaws

• Flaw 062
• §13(i)
• The term "ko" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "A position in which both players can alternately capture and recapture one stone apiece is called a ‘ko’."
• The term "ko" is ambiguous because the term "position" is undefined.
• Flaw 063
• §13(ii)
• The usage of "ko" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "When a ko arises and a player captures in it, his opponent may not recapture the capturing stone without first playing at least once elsewhere."
• The usage of "ko" in "When a ko arises" is ambiguous because the term "ko" is ambiguous.
• Flaw 064
• §13(ii)
• The meaning of "elsewhere" and the term "ko threats" are ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "When a ko arises and a player captures in it, his opponent may not recapture the capturing stone without first playing at least once elsewhere. Such moves elsewhere are called ‘ko threats’."
• "playing elsewhere", "moves elsewhere", and thus the term "ko threats" are ambiguous because "ko" is ambiguous and therefore the "elsewhere" related to "ko" is ambiguous.
• Flaw 065
• §13(ii)
• The meaning of "equally restricted" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "Both players’ moves are equally restricted by this rule."
• "equally restricted" is ambiguous because it might either mean a) that a restriction affects the moves of both players equally or b) that restrictions of moves of a player and restrictions of moves of the opponent are equal in their nature.
• Flaw 066
• §13(ii)
• The usage of passes is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "When a ko arises and a player captures in it, his opponent may not recapture the capturing stone without first playing at least once elsewhere."
• It is undefined whether a pass serves as "playing elsewhere".
• Flaw 067
• §13(iii)
• The rule is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "The purpose of this restriction is to prevent the endless repetition of the same position that would occur if recapture took place without making ko threats. This is called the ‘principle of prohibition of repetition’."
• The rule is ambiguous because "position" is undefined and "ko threats" is ambiguous. Shall this paragraph refer to the whole board configuration or to exactly two adjacent points? If the latter, which two? There might be more than one such pair of points on the board.
• Flaw 068
• §13(iii)
• The "principle of prohibition of repetition" is misleading.
• Relevant citation: "The purpose of this restriction is to prevent the endless repetition of the same position that would occur if recapture took place without making ko threats. This is called the ‘principle of prohibition of repetition’."
• If "position" refers to only exactly two, but unspecified adjacent points, then the rule's claim of "the principle of prohibition of repetition" is misleading because repetition can still occur in case of cycles achieved by more than two moves of that some play stones on the board.
• Flaw 069
• §13(iv)
• The word "rare" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "In those rare cases of triple or quadruple ko, in ko-like patterns such as eternal life, and in other abnormal positions"
• "rare" is ambiguous because the exact frequency and a method to calculate it are not stated.
• Flaw 070
• §13(iv)
• The term "triple ko" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "In those rare cases of triple or quadruple ko, in ko-like patterns such as eternal life, and in other abnormal positions"
• The term "triple ko" is undefined. What is it? Which characteristica does it have?
• Flaw 071
• §13(iv)
• The term "quadruple ko" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "In those rare cases of triple or quadruple ko, in ko-like patterns such as eternal life, and in other abnormal positions"
• The term "quadruple ko" is undefined. What is it? Which characteristica does it have?
• Flaw 072
• §13(iv)
• The term "ko-like patterns" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "In those rare cases of triple or quadruple ko, in ko-like patterns such as eternal life, and in other abnormal positions"
• The term "ko-like patterns" is undefined. What is it? Which characteristica does it have?
• Flaw 073
• §13(iv)
• The term "eternal life" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "In those rare cases of triple or quadruple ko, in ko-like patterns such as eternal life, and in other abnormal positions"
• The term "eternal life" is undefined. What is it? Which characteristica does it have?
• Flaw 074
• §13(iv)
• The term "other abnormal positions" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "In those rare cases of triple or quadruple ko, in ko-like patterns such as eternal life, and in other abnormal positions"
• The term "other abnormal positions" is undefined. What is it? Which characteristica does it have?

Flaws Related to Hypothetical Alternate Play

Preliminary Note

Summary

Relevant Citations

The Flaws

• Flaw 075
• §15(i)
• The usage of "alternate play by both sides" and "alternate play" is unclear.
• It is unclear why the specification of "alternate play by both sides" or "alternate play", respectively, is stated for non-corner, non-edge points but not also stated for non-corner edge points.
• Flaw 076
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19
• The consistency of the nature of conditional possibility is unclear.
• It is unclear whether the following phrases shall express the same nature of conditional possibility and shall be related to alternate play: "would" in §15(i), "be able" in §15(i), "cannot bring into" in §15(ii), "can secure" in §16(i), "cannot" in §16(ii), "can" in §17(i), "will" in §18, "cannot" in §19.
• Flaw 077
• Important flaw.
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19
• The hypothetical nature is hidden behind grammar.
• The hypothetical nature of the following phrases is hidden too much behind grammar instead of being made explicit and independent of grammar: "would" in §15(i), "be able" in §15(i), "cannot bring into" in §15(ii), "can secure" in §16(i), "cannot" in §16(ii), "can" in §17(i), "will" in §18, "cannot" in §19.
• Flaw 078
• Important flaw.
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19
• The hypothetical nature of the moves in conditionally possible hypothetical alternate play is undefined.
• The hypothetical nature of the moves in conditionally possible hypothetical alternate play is undefined in the following phrases. This is relevant to know whether hypothetical alternate play has effects and which on the configuration on the board and the numbers of prisoners. The phrases are: "alternate play by both sides would" in §15(i), "be able through alternate play" in §15(i), "cannot bring into [...] through alternate play" in §15(ii), "can secure [...] through alternate play" in §16(i), "cannot" in §16(ii), "can move first" in §17(i), "alternate play will produce" in §18, "cannot" in §19.
• Flaw 079
• Important flaw.
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+18+19
• The starting player of hypothetical alternate play is undefined.
• The starting player of hypothetical alternate play is undefined and it is unclear whether there has to be a particular starting player or whether either player as the starting player has to be examined. This occurs in the following phrases: "alternate play by both sides would" in §15(i), "be able through alternate play" in §15(i), "cannot bring into [...] through alternate play" in §15(ii), "can secure [...] through alternate play" in §16(i), "cannot" in §16(ii), "alternate play will produce" in §18, "cannot" in §19.
• Flaw 080
• Extremely important flaw.
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19
• Hypothetical move-sequences, hypothetical strategies, their relation, and their numbers are undefined and the rules are inapplicable as rules.
• It is undefined whether hypothetical alternate play considers exactly one move-sequence or an arbitrary number of move-sequences. If exactly one move-sequence shall be considered, then it is undefined which that is. If an arbitrary number of move-sequences shall be considered, then it is undefined what their qualitative relation is. However, if one thinks about it, then consideration of exactly one move-sequence would be possible only if the players would compete and actually execute that move-sequence on an extra board; the rules do not specify such. In other words, the aspect of "hypothetical strategy" is entirely missing where it ought to be in the rules clearly. Besides "hypothetical move-sequence" ought to be defined. Furthermore there are so extremely many possible hypothetical move-sequences and hypothetical strategies that determination of all of them is impossible; the rules are inapplicable as rules because of this. The relevant phrases in the text are: "alternate play by both sides would" in §15(i), "be able through alternate play" in §15(i), "cannot bring into [...] through alternate play" in §15(ii), "can secure [...] through alternate play" in §16(i), "cannot" in §16(ii), "can move first" in §17(i), "alternate play will produce" in §18, "cannot" in §19.
• Flaw 081
• Important flaw.
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19
• The available types of moves in hypothetical play are undefined.
• The available types of moves in hypothetical alternate play are undefined. In particular, it is undefined whether hypothetical passes are available. The relevant phrases in the text are: "alternate play by both sides would" in §15(i), "be able through alternate play" in §15(i), "cannot bring into [...] through alternate play" in §15(ii), "can secure [...] through alternate play" in §16(i), "cannot" in §16(ii), "can move first" in §17(i), "alternate play will produce" in §18, "cannot" in §19.
• Flaw 082
• Important flaw.
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19
• The effect of successive hypothetical passes is undefined.
• It is undefined for hypothetical alternate play whether successive hypothetical passes end a move-sequence. The relevant phrases in the text are: "alternate play by both sides would" in §15(i), "be able through alternate play" in §15(i), "cannot bring into [...] through alternate play" in §15(ii), "can secure [...] through alternate play" in §16(i), "cannot" in §16(ii), "can move first" in §17(i), "alternate play will produce" in §18, "cannot" in §19.
• Flaw 083
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19
• The meaning of infinite hypothetical move-sequences is undefined.
• The meaning of infinite hypothetical move-sequences is undefined. How are they to be interpreted? The relevant phrases in the text are: "alternate play by both sides would" in §15(i), "be able through alternate play" in §15(i), "cannot bring into [...] through alternate play" in §15(ii), "can secure [...] through alternate play" in §16(i), "cannot" in §16(ii), "can move first" in §17(i), "alternate play will produce" in §18, "cannot" in §19.
• Flaw 084
• Important flaw.
• §§13(ii)+15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19
• Application of §13(ii) to hypothetical alternate play is ambiguous.
• Relevant additional citation: §13(ii): "When a ko arises and a player captures in it, his opponent may not recapture the capturing stone without first playing at least once elsewhere. Such moves elsewhere are called ‘ko threats’. Both players’ moves are equally restricted by this rule."
• Application of §13(ii) to hypothetical alternate play is ambiguous. How is it applied within one hypothetical move-sequence if there are hypothetical passes? How is it applied when several hypothetical move-sequences are considered together? How is it applied when one or several hypothetical move-sequences are considered together while also considering the regular alternate play? Are restrictions carried over from one move-sequence to another or is each move-sequence considered separately for the purpose of applying §13(ii)?
• Flaw 085
• §§13(iv)+15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19
• Application of §13(iv) to hypothetical alternate play is ambiguous.
• Relevant additional citation: §13(iv): "In those rare cases of triple or quadruple ko, in ko-like patterns such as eternal life, and in other abnormal positions, the Nihon Ki-in may establish special rules governing the restriction of moves and the end of the game, regardless of the principle of prohibition of repetition. (See the precedents below.)"
• Application of §13(iv) to hypothetical alternate play is ambiguous. How is it applied within one hypothetical move-sequence if there are hypothetical passes? How is it applied when several hypothetical move-sequences are considered together? How is it applied when one or several hypothetical move-sequences are considered together while also considering the regular alternate play? Are restrictions carried over from one move-sequence to another or is each move-sequence considered separately for the purpose of applying §13(iv)? Does reference to one or several precedents override consideration of any hypothetical move-sequences?
• Flaw 086
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19+27
• Application of §27 to hypothetical alternate play is ambiguous.
• Relevant additional citation: §27: "Questions that arise concerning rule 13(iv), concerning life, death, and seki, concerning whether or not it is necessary to defend inside one’s territory, concerning the counting of territory, etc. are to be settled in accordance with the Nihon Ki-in’s precedents given below."
• Application of §27 to hypothetical alternate play is ambiguous. How is it applied within one hypothetical move-sequence if there are hypothetical passes? How is it applied when several hypothetical move-sequences are considered together? How is it applied when one or several hypothetical move-sequences are considered together while also considering the regular alternate play? Are restrictions carried over from one move-sequence to another or is each move-sequence considered separately for the purpose of applying §27? Does reference to one or several precedents override consideration of any hypothetical move-sequences?
• Flaw 087
• §§15(i)+15(ii)+16(i)+16(ii)+17(i)+18+19+"Nihon Ki-in Precedents"/"Ko questions and three points without capturing"
• Application of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents" to hypothetical alternate play is ambiguous.
• Relevant additional citation: Section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents": "(1) A bent four in the corner is independently dead, regardless of the rest of the board. (2) The three-points-without-capturing positions shown are to be resolved by actual play. If neither captures, neither receives any territory. (3) If a triple, quadruple, quintuple, etc. ko, a round-robin ko, an eternal life, or other abnormal pattern arises and the same board position is made repeatedly with neither side willing to give in, the game ends without result. (4) In a thousand-year ko, if neither side is willing to start the ko the player who is able by capturing and connecting to make the position a seki shall do so."
• Application of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents" to hypothetical alternate play is ambiguous. How is it applied within one hypothetical move-sequence if there are hypothetical passes? How is it applied when several hypothetical move-sequences are considered together? How is it applied when one or several hypothetical move-sequences are considered together while also considering the regular alternate play? Are restrictions carried over from one move-sequence to another or is each move-sequence considered separately for the purpose of applying the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"? Does reference to one or several precedents override consideration of any hypothetical move-sequences?

Pass, End of the Game

Summary

The Flaws

• Flaw 088
• §8
• The move type "pass" is missing.
• Relevant citation: "Moves are played on the points, and except for the restrictions in rules 12 and 13 the players may play on any vacant point on the board throughout the game."
• The rule fails to provide the move type "pass". As a consequence, in particular §13(ii), §20, and §22 are ambiguous.
• Flaw 089
• §20(i)
• The usage of "the end of the game" and "the game is ended" is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "Then the player whose turn is next declares the end of the game. If his opponent agrees, the game is ended."
• It is confusing that both "the end of the game" (consisting of nouns) and "the game is ended" (consisting of noun and passive verb) are used.
• Flaw 090
• §20(i)
• The concept "to declare the end of the game" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "Then the player whose turn is next declares the end of the game."
• The concept "to declare the end of the game" is ambiguous. It ought to be replaced by the clear concept "pass".
• Flaw 091
• §20(i)
• The concept "opponent agrees" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "Then the player whose turn is next declares the end of the game. If his opponent agrees, the game is ended."
• The concept "[the] opponent agrees" in "If his opponent agrees"  is ambiguous. It ought to be replaced by the clear concept "pass".
• Flaw 092
• §20(i)
• The rule is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation:"The players continue to play alternately until all the neutral points have been filled and all necessary defensive moves inside territory have been made. Then the player whose turn is next declares the end of the game. If his opponent agrees, the game is ended."
• The rule is ambiguous because "neutral points" and "necessary defensive moves inside territory" are undefined.
• Flaw 093
• §20(ii)
• The concept "may disagree" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation:"The opponent may however disagree and continue to play"
• The concept "may disagree" is ambiguous. Simply letting the opponent make a move would have been a clear concept.
• Flaw 094
• §20(ii)
• The rule is superfluous.
• Relevant citation: "The opponent may however disagree and continue to play, in which case the player who declared the end of the game may also resume play."
• The rule is superfluous and could be omitted if the term "pass" were used in §20(i).
• Flaw 095
• §20(ii)
• The concept "may resume" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "in which case the player who declared the end of the game may also resume play."
• The modal aspect of the concept "may resume" is ambiguous.
• Flaw 096
• §22
• The term "finished game" is superfluous.
• Relevant citation: "When the game ends as stipulated in rule 20 it is said to have been ‘finished’, and the winner is determined as described in the following rules."
• The term "finished game" is superfluous. Apparently it coincides with the term "end of the game" in §20.
• Flaw 097
• Section "Defensive moves inside territory" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The usage of the term "pass" is unclear.
• Relevant citation: "All questions concerning the need for defense inside territory are to be resolved by actual play, with a pass regarded as

one move."
• It is unclear why the explicit term "pass" in "with a pass regarded as one move." is used in one exceptional precedent but not in the regular §§8 and 20.

Neutral Points, Necessary Defensive Moves inside Territory

Summary

The Flaws

• Flaw 098
• Important flaw.
• §20
• The term "neutral point" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "The players continue to play alternately until all the neutral points have been filled"
• The term "neutral point" is undefined. What is it? Is it mandatory to make self-ataris in sekis?
• Flaw 099
• Very important flaw.
• §§20+27
• The term "necessary defensive moves inside territory" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: §20: "and all necessary defensive moves inside territory have been made", §27: "Questions that arise concerning rule 13(iv), concerning life, death, and seki, concerning whether or not it is necessary to defend inside one’s territory, concerning the counting of territory, etc. are to be settled in accordance with the Nihon Ki-in’s precedents given below."
• The term "necessary defensive moves inside territory" is undefined. On 2006-04-11, a definition has still not been discovered despite thousands of hours of related research. The flaw is very important because an interpretation of the rules is particularly difficult here and necessary in every game and because this is in contrast to a principle possibility to simplify the rules' design by omitting this rule and all related rules aspects in the rules of play. As long as the term is undefined, it is unclear how many defensive moves a player has to make. The flaw has a direct consequence for the score.
• Flaw 100
• Very important flaw.
• §20
• The rule contradicts Go wisdom.
• Relevant citation: "The players continue to play alternately until all the neutral points have been filled"
• The rule is wrong because, according to common Go knowledge, neutral points occur in between independent life or in between coexisting life and the latter will not survive if all the neutral points are filled.
• Flaw 101
• Important flaw.
• §20
• The rule is incomplete.
• Relevant citation: "The players continue to play alternately until [...] all necessary defensive moves inside territory have been made."
• The rule is incomplete because a teire does not need to be inside territory but could still be not somehow completely surrounded by two-eye-alive strings of a player. On 2006-04-11, further reasons are still under research.

Precedents

Concluding Summary

Relevant Citation of the Rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"

(1) A bent four in the corner is independently dead, regardless of the rest of the board.

(2) The three-points-without-capturing positions shown are to be resolved by actual play. If neither captures, neither receives any territory.

(3) If a triple, quadruple, quintuple, etc. ko, a round-robin ko, an eternal life, or other abnormal pattern arises and the same board position is made repeatedly with neither side willing to give in, the game ends without result.

(4) In a thousand-year ko, if neither side is willing to start the ko, the player who is able by capturing and connecting to make the position a seki shall do so.

Defensive moves inside territory

All questions concerning the need for defense inside territory are to be resolved by actual play, with a pass regarded as one move.

The Flaws - Part 1

• Flaw 102
• §13(iv)+§28
• The nature of the Nihon Ki-in's actions are undefined.
• Relevant citation: §13(iv): "the Nihon Ki-in may establish special rules governing the restriction of moves and the end of the game, regardless of the principle of prohibition of repetition.", §28: "If in any of the above cases no precedent exists, the question shall be ruled upon by the Nihon Ki-in."
• "the Nihon Ki-in may establish" in §13(iv) and "shall be ruled upon by the Nihon Ki-in" in §28 are ambiguous. It is unclear whether the Nihon Ki-in will establish something, when the Nihon Ki-in will establish something, how all players in the world are informed if the Nihon Ki-in will establish something, whether all players in the world are informed in time if the Nihon Ki-in will establish something, and how it is kept track of everything the Nihon Ki-in establishes.
• Flaw 103
• Very important flaw.
• §13(iv)+§28
• The "Nihon Ki-in" is assigned an undue role.
• Relevant citation: §13(iv): "the Nihon Ki-in may establish special rules governing the restriction of moves and the end of the game, regardless of the principle of prohibition of repetition.", §28: "If in any of the above cases no precedent exists, the question shall be ruled upon by the Nihon Ki-in."
• The "Nihon Ki-in", which is a particular Japanese Go association, is assigned a particular role that is undue and unfair in an international ruleset that is meant to be equally fair for players of all countries.
• Flaw 104
• §13(iv)+§28
• The rules are inapplicable and have not been applied.
• Relevant citation: §13(iv): "the Nihon Ki-in may establish special rules governing the restriction of moves and the end of the game, regardless of the principle of prohibition of repetition.", §28: "If in any of the above cases no precedent exists, the question shall be ruled upon by the Nihon Ki-in."
• The rules §13(iv) and §28 are pretty much inapplicable. Besides it is hard to see the relevance of these rules because since the beginning of the existence of the World Amateur Go Championship 1979 Rules, the Nihon Ki-in has established nothing related to these rules. The reason is not that nothing would have occurred but the reason is that the Nihon Ki-in has failed to become active.
• Flaw 105
• §§13(iv)+27+28+"Nihon Ki-in Precedents"+Appendix "Precedents"
• Application of precedents is ambiguous.
• Relevant additional citation: §13(iv): "the Nihon Ki-in may establish special rules governing the restriction of moves and the end of the game, regardless of the principle of prohibition of repetition.", §27: "Questions that arise concerning rule 13(iv), concerning life, death, and seki, concerning whether or not it is necessary to defend inside one’s territory, concerning the counting of territory, etc. are to be settled in accordance with the Nihon Ki-in’s precedents given below." §28: "If in any of the above cases no precedent exists, the question shall be ruled upon by the Nihon Ki-in."
• It is ambiguous how, how far-reaching, and in which order of priority to apply the precedents in "(See the precedents below.)" for the purpose of the rule.
• Flaw 106
• Important flaw.
• §§27+28+"Nihon Ki-in Precedents"+Appendix "Precedents"
• Usage of precedents is questionable per se.
• Relevant additional citation: §27: "Questions that arise concerning rule 13(iv), concerning life, death, and seki, concerning whether or not it is necessary to defend inside one’s territory, concerning the counting of territory, etc. are to be settled in accordance with the Nihon Ki-in’s precedents given below." §28: "If in any of the above cases no precedent exists, the question shall be ruled upon by the Nihon Ki-in."
• For regular law, there are different law traditions like the Roman tradition that prefers explicit laws or like the Anglo-American tradition that prefers reference to precedents. So in principle either is possible also for rules of play. However, Go rules of play are a such restricted field of law that it is easily possible with a short or relatively short text to provide complete and unambiguous rules. It is a great mistake to rely on precedents because 1) the procedure is so cumbersome that apparently so far the Nihon Ki-in has never managed to answer any rules questions (although there have been some) or to make any new precedential decisions (although known problems have occurred), 2) the players run the risk of being treated like criminals if in tournaments they do try to apply the rules as rules or do question the rules, 3) previously nobody (!) has had a reasonable understanding of these rules (those that claimed understanding were unable to explain the rules at all or at least reasonably when asked), 4) the precedents and those rules sections to that the precedents refer are so complicated that application of the rules as rules is unnecessarily difficult, 5) the precedents create unnatural, superfluous exceptions, which as such are all the harder to remember.

The Flaws - Part 2

• Flaw 107
• Involved parts of the rules: Text-paragraph (1) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents", rule about bent four in the corner of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The term "bent four in the corner" is undefined.
• Relevant additional citation: "A bent four in the corner is independently dead, regardless of the rest of the board."
• The term "bent four in the corner" is undefined. The included points, the distribution of stones and their colours on the points, and the distinction of favourite and underdog for the purpose of life and death are all undefined.
• Flaw 108
• Involved parts of the rules: Text-paragraph (1) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents", rule about bent four in the corner of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The word "independently" is undefined.
• Relevant additional citation: "A bent four in the corner is independently dead, regardless of the rest of the board."
• The word "independently", which is used like a term here, is undefined. In exactly which sense is "independently" meant here?
• Flaw 109
• Involved parts of the rules: Text-paragraph (1) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents", rule about bent four in the corner of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The phrase "the rest of the board" is undefined.
• Relevant additional citation: "A bent four in the corner is independently dead, regardless of the rest of the board."
• The phrase "the rest of the board", which is used like a term here, is undefined. Exactly which points form "the rest of the board"?
• Flaw 110
• Involved parts of the rules: Text-paragraph (1) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents", rule about bent four in the corner of the Appendix "Precedents"
• Application of the rule and §17 is unclear.
• Relevant additional citation: §17(i): "A position in which there are two opposing groups without eyes or with one eye apiece but in which neither side can move first and capture the other is called a ‘seki’." §17(ii): "In a seki both sides’ stones are considered to be alive." Appendix "Precedents": "A bent four in the corner is independently dead, regardless of the rest of the board."
• Application of the rule and §17 is unclear when a bent four in the corner and another but colour-inverse bent four in the corner share exactly one vacant point.
• Flaw 111
• Involved parts of the rules: Text-paragraph (1) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents", rule about bent four in the corner of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The scope of the rule is unclear.
• Relevant additional citation: "A bent four in the corner is independently dead, regardless of the rest of the board."
• It is unclear whether this rule is restricted or not restricted by the example diagrams in the Appendix "Precedents".
• Flaw 112
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (2) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The term "three-points-without-capturing" is undefined.
• The term "three-points-without-capturing" is undefined. The included points, the distribution of stones and their colours on the points, and the distinction of favourite and underdog for the purpose of life and death are all undefined. The context "The three-points-without-capturing positions shown [in the diagrams]" does not explain the aforementioned aspects in general.
• Flaw 113
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (2) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The rule contradicts itself.
• "are to be resolved by actual play" and "If neither captures" contradict each other because the former assumes resolution by actual play while the latter assumes no resolution by actual play. Already the first move of actual play in a three points without capturing does capture. Therefore to speak of "neither captures" means that no actual play (other than successive passes) is done at all. (Since passes as such are not common from the view of the ruleset's own design, the possibility of successive passes being the alternate play can be excluded from being a suitable interpretation here.) It is particularly painful for a ruleset that for some of its rules one has to say that the rule contradicts itself. This is another indication of the very low quality of the World Amateur Go Championship 1979 Rules.
• Flaw 114
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (2) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The phrase "resolved by actual play" is ambiguous.
• The phrase "resolved by actual play" is ambiguous. What is meant by "resolved"? When and how does actual play occur?
• Flaw 115
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (2) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• "captures" is unclear.
• "captures" is unclear because it is unclear what is to be captured.
• Flaw 116
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (2) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• "neither receives any territory" is ambiguous.
• "neither receives any territory" is ambiguous. Does it mean that neither has any territory or that the territory of neither counts for the score? Does it refer to local points (which?) only or to territory on the whole board?
• Flaw 117
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (2) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The rule is unclear.
• The rule is unclear because "three-points-without-capturing" is undefined, "are to be resolved by actual play" and "If neither captures" contradict each other, "resolved by actual play" is ambiguous, "captures" is unclear, and "neither receives any territory" is ambiguous.
• Flaw 118
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (2) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The restriction to points is unclear.
• It is unclear whether this rule is restricted or not restricted by the outside stones and outside vacant points in the example diagrams in the Appendix "Precedents".
• Flaw 119
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The term "triple ko" is undefined.
• The term "triple ko" is undefined. The included points and the distribution of stones and their colours on the points are undefined.
• Flaw 120
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The term "quadruple ko" is undefined.
• The term "quadruple ko" is undefined. The included points and the distribution of stones and their colours on the points are undefined.
• Flaw 121
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The term "quintuple ko" is undefined.
• The term "quintuple ko" is undefined. The included points and the distribution of stones and their colours on the points are undefined.
• Flaw 122
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The term "n-tuple ko" is undefined.
• The term "n-tuple ko", which is expressed by "etc." in "a triple, quadruple, quintuple, etc. ko", is undefined. The included points and the distribution of stones and their colours on the points are undefined.
• Flaw 123
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The term "round-robin ko" is undefined.
• The term "round-robin ko" is undefined. The included points and the distribution of stones and their colours on the points are undefined.
• Flaw 124
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The term "eternal life" is undefined.
• The term "eternal life" is undefined. The included points and the distribution of stones and their colours on the points are undefined.
• Flaw 125
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The term "other abnormal pattern" is undefined.
• The term "other abnormal pattern" is undefined. The included points and the distribution of stones and their colours on the points are undefined.
• Flaw 126
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• "made repeatedly" is ambiguous.
• "made repeatedly" is ambiguous. Is one repetition sufficient?
• Flaw 127
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• "willing to give in" is undefined.
• "willing to give in" is undefined. What shall it mean? To say "I give in."? It is related to moves and how?
• Flaw 128
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The result "without result" is confusing.
• It is confusing that a game result can be the result "without result".
• Flaw 129
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The rule is unclear.
• The rule is unclear because "triple ko", "quadruple ko", "quintuple ko", "n-tuple ko", "round-robin ko", "eternal life", "other abnormal pattern", "position", "willing to give in" are undefined and "made repeatedly" is ambiguous.
• Flaw 130
• Important flaw.
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (3) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The rule creates undecidable strategy.
• The rule creates undecidable strategy because "No Result" is uncomparable to any counted score. E.g., if the next move could create either a so called triple ko or a so called double ko seki, then neither the moving player nor the referee can decide objectively which move is better.
• Flaw 131
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (4) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The term "thousand-year ko" is undefined.
• The term "thousand-year ko" is undefined. The included points and the distribution of stones and their colours on the points are undefined.
• Flaw 132
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (4) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• "willing to" is undefined.
• "willing to" is undefined. How does one identify this? Who does identify this?
• Flaw 133
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (4) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The rule is unclear.
• The rule is unclear because "thousand-year ko", "willing to", "position" are undefined and "seki" is ambiguous.
• Flaw 134
• Involved part of the rules: Text-paragraph (4) of the section "Ko questions and three points without capturing" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• Restriction of the rule by the Appendix's diagrams is unclear.
• It is unclear whether this rule is restricted or not restricted by the example diagrams in the Appendix "Precedents".
• Flaw 135
• Involved part of the rules: Section "Defensive moves inside territory" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The rule contradicts itself.
• The definite article in "the need" contradicts "are to be resolved by actual play". (Note: "need" does not refer to hypothetical alternate play here since it refers to actual play. Therefore the word "need" alone does not create a flaw here.)
• Flaw 136
• Involved part of the rules: Section "Defensive moves inside territory" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• "defense inside territory" is undefined and ambiguous.
• "defense inside territory" is undefined and ambiguous. It is ambiguous because the procedural moment of its application is unclear - before or after something being "resolved by actual play"?
• Flaw 137
• Involved part of the rules: Section "Defensive moves inside territory" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The phrase "resolved by actual play" is ambiguous.
• The phrase "resolved by actual play" is ambiguous. What is meant by "resolved"? When and how does actual play occur?
• Flaw 138
• Involved part of the rules: Section "Defensive moves inside territory" of the rules-paragraph "Nihon Ki-in Precedents"
• The rule is unclear.
• The rule is unclear because the definite article in "the need" contradicts "are to be resolved by actual play", "defense inside territory" is undefined and ambiguous, and "resolved by actual play" is ambiguous.

The Flaws - Part 3

• Flaw 139
• Involved part of the rules: Appendix "Precedents"
• Interpretation of each diagram is unclear.
• It is unclear how each diagram is supposed to be interpreted - as an exact representation of location, shapes, and colours or as a rough model? Is rotation, mirroring, colour-inversion, and - where possible - dislocation allowed? May more outside strings be added? Are outside strings considered unconditionally alive regardless of the rest of the board? May vacant outside points be occupied? How closely must the internal shapes and vacant points be kept?
• Flaw 140
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram "double ko seki" of the  Appendix "Precedents"
• The intention of the diagram caption is unclear.
• Is the diagram caption its program, i.e. is the thing a seki?
• Flaw 141
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram "double ko seki" of the  Appendix "Precedents"
• The intention of the diagram is unclear.
• Shall the diagram also imply that that shape may not be used to avoid reaching the end of the game?
• Flaw 142
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 1 of the diagrams "double ko death" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The intention of the diagram caption is unclear.
• Is the diagram caption its program, i.e. is something dead?
• Flaw 143
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 1 of the diagrams "double ko death" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The intention of the diagram is unclear.
• What is dead? All black stones? The white ko stone? Both?
• Flaw 144
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 2 of the diagrams "double ko death" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The intention of the diagram caption is unclear.
• Is the diagram caption its program, i.e. is something dead?
• Flaw 145
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 2 of the diagrams "double ko death" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The intention of the diagram is unclear.
• What is dead? All black stones? The inside white stones? Both? Only one or both ko stones?
• Flaw 146
• Involved part of the rules: Rule about without result of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The required frequency of repetition is unclear.
• Relevant additional citation: "If the players do not end the game by repeating positions, the game ends without result."
• It is unclear how often positions have to be repeated so that the rule applies.
• Flaw 147
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 1 of the diagrams "round-robin ko" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The statement "seki is also possible" is unclear.
• It is unclear when the statement "seki is also possible" applies. Only when the rule "If the players do not end the game by repeating positions, the game ends without result." is not applied? This is ambiguous because the rule is ambiguous with respect to the moment when it may apply.
• Flaw 148
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 3 of the diagrams "triple ko" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The statement "seki is also possible" is unclear.
• It is unclear when the statement "seki is also possible" applies. Only when the rule "If the players do not end the game by repeating positions, the game ends without result." is not applied? This is ambiguous because the rule is ambiguous with respect to the moment when it may apply.
• Flaw 149
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 1 of the diagrams "eternal life" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The statement "transformation to seki is also possible" is unclear.
• It is unclear when the statement "transformation to seki is also possible" applies.
• Flaw 150
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 2 of the diagrams "eternal life" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The statement "transformation to seki is also possible" is unclear.
• It is unclear when the statement "transformation to seki is also possible" applies.
• Flaw 151
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 1 of the diagrams about "neutral points" and "defensive moves inside territory" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The diagram's intentions are unclear.
• The exact intentions of this diagram are unclear.
• Flaw 152
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 2 of the diagrams about "neutral points" and "defensive moves inside territory" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The diagram's intentions are unclear.
• The exact intentions of this diagram are unclear.
• Flaw 153
• Involved parts of the rules: Diagrams "three-points-without-capturing" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The intention of the name is unclear and confusing.
• Relevant additional citation: "The three-points-without-capturing positions shown in the diagrams below are treated as alive in seki at the game end."
• Why are they called "three-points-without-capturing" if they are treated as sekis by the rule? Why "three" even in the bigger shapes?
• Flaw 154
• Involved parts of the rules: Diagrams "three-points-without-capturing" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• Application of §24 is unclear.
• Relevant additional citation: §24: "If there are enemy stones inside an eye possessed by a group that is alive in seki, the player may capture them, force his opponent to play as many additional stones as necessary, and capture them also, adding them to his prisoners, as long as this does not destroy the seki pattern."
• It is unclear whether §24 applies or whether none of the stones may be captured at the game end. If §24 should apply, then it is unclear which player may make the first local play.
• Flaw 155
• Involved part of the rules: Implicit rule about direct ko of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The term "direct ko" is undefined.
• Relevant additional implicitly derived rule: "[A game may not end if life and death depend on a direct ko.]"
• The term "direct ko" is undefined. What does it mean?
• Flaw 156
• Involved part of the rules: Implicit rule about direct ko of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The rule is ambiguous.
• Relevant additional implicitly derived rule: "[A game may not end if life and death depend on a direct ko.]"
• The rule is ambiguous because "life" and "death" are ambiguous and "direct ko" is undefined.
• Flaw 157
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 1 of the diagrams "defense inside territory" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The nature of "direct" is unclear.
• It is unclear why in "[white needs to capture the single black stone]" that capture makes the shape a not direct ko.
• Flaw 158
• Involved part of the rules: Diagram 2 of the diagrams "defense inside territory" of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The term "dissolution" is undefined.
• The term "dissolution" is undefined in "[ko needs dissolution by either player]".
• Flaw 159
• Involved part of the rules: Rule about thousand-year ko of the Appendix "Precedents"
• The rule ambiguous.
• Relevant additional citation: "Before the game end in a thousand-year ko the player who is able to capture and connect the ko to retain a seki shall do so."
• The rule ambiguous. May either player become "the player" or only one of the players? "able to", "ko", and "seki" are ambiguous.

Miscellaneous Flaws

• Flaw 160
• §1
• The aim of the game is wrong.
• Relevant citation: "Go is a game for two players, who compete under fixed terms of play, using a go board and go stones, by playing alternately, on any point on the board (except when restricted by the rules below) to see which can take more territory. After play is completed territory is counted to determine the winner, although in the cases noted in rule 21 the winner may be determined without counting."
• The aim of the game to take more territory is wrong. "to see which can take more territory" has to be "to see which can take the greater sum of his territory plus prisoners of opposing colour". "territory is counted to determine the winner" has to be "territory and prisoners are counted to determine the winner".
• Flaw 161
• §12(1)
• "move" is abused.
• Relevant citation: "A move surrounded by enemy stones"
• "move" is abused for "stone".
• Flaw 162
• §12(2)
• The term "connected" is undefined.
• Relevant citation: "The last remaining vacant point of a connected group of points surrounded by enemy stones, when all the other points of the group have been occupied."
• The term "connected" is undefined. Connected in which sense?
• Flaw 163
• §12(2)
• The term "group of points" is ambiguous.
• Relevant citation: "The last remaining vacant point of a connected group of points surrounded by enemy stones, when all the other points of the group have been occupied."
• The term "group of points" is ambiguous. It is unclear whether all points of the group shall be occupied by non-enemy stones.
• Flaw 164
• §12(2)
• Usage of the term "group of points" is confusing.
• Relevant citation: "The last remaining vacant point of a connected group of points surrounded by enemy stones, when all the other points of the group have been occupied."
• Usage of the term "group of points" creates confusion with terms of "group of stones".

Flaws Sorted by Nature

• ++ = very difficult (19)
• + = rather difficult (60)
• o = of intermediate difficulty (23)
• - = rather easy (31)
• -- = very easy (31)

21 Terms with Obvious Meanings

• --001: group of stones
• --002: group of stones
• --007: surrounded
• --008: surrounding
• -020: eye
• +021: eye
• --025: such a pattern
• --041: point of territory
• --042: to count as territory
• --044: territory in seki
• --048: living [...] live
• --050: live
• --051: prisoners
• --062: ko
• --063: ko
• --089: the end of the game [...] the game is ended
• --095: may resume
• -126: made repeatedly
• --161: move
• -162: connected
• -164: group of points

84 Terms without Obvious Meanings

• -003: group of stones
• -004: group of stones
• -005: group of stones
• -006: group of stones
• -009: surrounded
• -010: surrounded
• -011: surrounded
• -012: surrounded
• --013: position
• --014: position
• --015: position
• +016:: position
• +017:: position
• --018:: position
• +019:: position
• --022: eye
• +023: eye
• +024: eye
• +026: pattern other than those specified in the preceding paragraph [...] one of those patterns
• +027: false eye
• +028: false eye
• +029: eye
• +030: eye
• +031: eye
• +032: eye
• +033: alive
• +034: alive
• +035: seki
• +036: seki
• -037: alive
• +038: shape
• +039: dead
• +040: territory
• +046: those
• ++053: inside
• +054: possessed
• o055: may capture them
• +056: force his opponent to play as many additional stones as necessary
• +057: destroy
• +058: pattern
• -061: the counting of territory
• --064: elsewhere [...] ko threats
• --065: equally restricted
• -069: rare
• +070: triple ko
• +071: quadruple ko
• ++072: ko-like patterns
• +073: eternal life
• ++074: other abnormal positions
• -075: alternate play by both sides [...] alternate play
• o076: consistency of the nature of conditional possibility
• -090: to declare the end of the game
• -091: opponent agrees
• -093: may disagree
• -096: finished game
• -097: pass
• +098: neutral point
• ++099: necessary defensive moves inside territory
• ++102: nature of the Nihon Ki-in's actions
• +107: bent four in the corner
• +108: independently
• +109: rest of the board
• +112: three-points-without-capturing
• +114: resolved by actual play
• -115: captures
• -116: neither receives any territory
• +119: triple ko
• +120: quadruple ko
• +121: quintuple ko
• +122: n-tuple ko
• +123: round-robin ko
• +124: eternal life
• ++125: other abnormal pattern
• -127: willing to give in
• --128: without result
• +131: thousand-year ko
• +132: willing to
• ++136: defense inside territory
• o137: resolved by actual play
• -153: three-points-without-capturing
• ++155: direct ko
• ++157: direct
• ++158: dissolution
• o163: group of points

3 Rules with Obvious Meanings

• --043: excluding seki from counting as territory
• --045: coexistence of counted and of not counted territory
• -106: usage of precedents

56 Rules without Obvious Meanings

• o047: condition "on which his opponent cannot live"
• +049: territory
• +052: remove dead stones
• +059: remove stones from sekis
• --060: remove stones from sekis
• o066: pass as ko threat
• -067: purpose of ko rule
• --068: principle of prohibition of repetition
• o077: hypothetical nature
• o078: hypothetical nature
• o079: starting player of hypothetical alternate play
• ++080: hypothetical move-sequences, hypothetical strategies, their relation, their numbers, their application
• o081: available types of moves in hypothetical play
• o082: successive hypothetical passes
• +083: meaning of infinite hypothetical move-sequences
• +084: application of ko rule in hypothetical play
• +085: application of long cycle ko rule in hypothetical play
• +086: application of exceptional aspects in hypothetical play
• +087: precedents
• o088: available move types
• ++092: game end conditions
• -094: game end
• +100: filling neutral points
• ++101: filling necessary defensive moves inside territory
• ++103: role of the Nihon Ki-in
• ++104: applicability
• +105: application of precedents
• +110: application of the bent four in the corner rule and §17
• o111: scope of the bent four in the corner rule
• -113: three-points-without-capturing
• +117: three-points-without-capturing
• o118: restriction to points
• o129: long cycle
• o130: long cycle
• +133: thousand-year ko
• o134: restriction of the thousand-year ko rule by the Appendix's diagrams
• o135: defensive moves inside territory
• ++138: defensive moves inside territory
• o139: interpretation of each diagram
• --140: intention of the diagram caption double ko seki
• +141: intention of the diagram double ko seki
• --142: intention of the diagram caption double ko death
• +143: intention of the diagram double ko death
• --144: intention of the diagram caption double ko death
• +145: intention of the diagram double ko death
• -146: frequency of repetition
• o147: seki is also possible in round-robin ko
• o148: seki is also possible in round-robin ko
• o149: seki is also possible in eternal life
• o150: seki is also possible in eternal life
• ++151: intention of the diagram neutral points and defensive moves inside territory
• ++152: intention of the diagram neutral points and defensive moves inside territory
• +154: rule remove stones from sekis and diagrams three-points-without-capturing
• ++156: direct ko
• +159: thousand-year ko
• -160: aim of the game