In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
The japanese rules have problems and there have been cases where 2
professionals argue about the outcome of a game. They are not clearly
defined for obscure cases.
I am doubtful. There have certainly been cases in the past, but I think
the 1989 Japanese rules are clearly defined for all cases. Can you give
an example which you consider doubtful?
In addition, they are not simple. Ing
rules and chinese rules are both reasonable sets of rules because there
is no room for argument about who wins.
Chinese rules are fine (apart from their ambiguity about superko). But
Ing rules are the worst rule set I have come across. Their problem is
not with knowing who wins, it is with knowing whether a move is legal.
For an example, see the second diagram at
http://www.weddslist.com/cgi-bin/goban.pl?url=http://www.maproom.co.uk/us
eful/ing-matti.html . Yang Yu-Chia (one of the three people in the
world with a credible claim to understand the Ing rules) has admitted
that he does not know whether Black can start the ko in the second
diagram.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
