On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 14:32 +0000, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: > Lukasz Lew wrote: > > > The unification needs that *pass* costs one point. > > And this is only modification needed. > > Passing when a game is finished is the only > "Kami No Itte" move we, the mortals, can play. > Probably, all our other moves are suboptimal. > And playing when one should pass, deserves > the most horrendous epithets that apply to > moves. > > Your proposal penalizes the most elegant move > for the sake of elegance. > > The options are: > > 1. Penalize the wrong moves, expecting > the player will learn. i.e. Japanese rules. > > 2. Indulgently ignore the wrong moves > assuming the player is still weak. i.e. > Chinese rules.
Jacques, Certain non-pass moves in Japanese are BAD because the Japanese rules define them to be bad. It really doesn't follow that this makes it "indulgent" or "wrong" when playing under a completely different system. Those moves are clearly not weak, "wrong" or bad under Chinese rules. I would put it to you that if you play under Chinese rules, you define what is "wrong" in those terms, not by some outside standard that has nothing to do with the rules you have agreed on. This cuts both ways. Wouldn't it be pretty silly if I was watching a Japanese game and continuously criticized certain moves as "wrong" based on Chinese standards? - Don > There is no need of unification, since there are > intrinsically different approaches. Penalizing > the correct move is too creative for me.;-) > > Jacques. > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
