On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 18:53 +0200, chrilly wrote: > 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/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
