Jesus, there are not just Japanese, Chinese rules, there are ING, AGA... I
learned today, that suicide is allowed under some rules...
I thought, Go is a well defined game with a very clear "mathematical" rule
set.
There are discussions in other sports too (e.g. in Table-Tennis), but
nevertheless there is usually a reasonable compromise, everybody can live
with. There is at the end some pragmatism. This pragmatism is also quite
missing in chess and it seems to be absent in Go. The explanation I have for
chess is: Chess players have a board infront of their head. The difference
to Go seems to be: The Go-Board is even larger.
Chrilly
I think the
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Jasiek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "computer-go" <computer-go@computer-go.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
chrilly wrote:
Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go?
As somebody having taken part in the International Go Rules Forum, which
has been meant to unify the rules, I can tell you the reasons:
The major split has - not surprisingly - occurred again between the Area
Scoring (China, Ing, AGA, supported by the EGF delegates) and the
Traditional Territory Scoring (Japan, Korean, supported by some IGF
delegates) factions. The reasons are:
- The territorialists (or their influential majority) don't want to
compromise. They reject even compromises that are very close to their
current rulesets. They want to keep at least 99.9% of their tradition.
- The territorialists play on time for the purpose of leaving things as
they are.
- The majority of the Chinese (except Mr. Hua) has been too silent during
the discussion because they have not educated themselves well about the
theoretical background of rules discussion.
- The Ing delegates played too much on aiming at Ing-specific aspects
instead of going for compromise earlier and could bear too little factual
criticism.
After the territorialists had gone, the arealists solved every secondary
issue quickly, all expressed a good will and time schedule for solving the
major issues, and then (so far) have stopped further unifying at least the
Area Scoring rules:
- The Chinese and Ing delegates have been almost completely silent since
the last meeting.
- The AGA delegates slowed down discussion for some months.
- The AGA delegates and every European delegate or expert (except myself)
insisted on discussing and aiming at superko again while during the last
meeting it had become pretty clear that the Chinese and Ing delegates
would not accept superko at all.
If you need to criticise also me, you might argue that I did most of the
factual discussion instead of being simply silent and letting the Asians
do whatever they might have liked (although IMO it did not seem that they
would have advanced any sooner then and it would have meant for sure that
the rules would have got significantly more flaws).
Summarizing, the overall intention to compromise or at least to accelerate
factual discussion is still by far too small.
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
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/
