On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 08:50 -0700, Dave Dyer wrote: > On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really > only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary > situations.
That ignores the very real problems that many beginners have trying to understand the logic behind Japanese rules. Computer Go has also benefitted tremendously by using Chinese-style rules. I don't think MoGo would have achieved such stunning success in 1 year without them. I also find it ugly that in the small percentage of games where disputes occur, the common solution is to stop the clock and verbally dispute the position, or appeal to a higher authority, instead of having the players finish the game on the board. In tournament play this ugliness is magnified. As a cute example, I recently ran across a KGS game (non-tournament) where a player was complaining that his opponent had lost the game and "escaped". After looking at the game, it was clear that the "escaper" had actually won by half a point, but his opponent didn't agree to the status of a group. He escaped in frustration. The player who misunderstood the position was rated 7k, but it took me several minutes worth of demonstrations before he could understand the position. I have attached the game. Finally, I think the people involved with the AGA rules would be rightfully upset at your summary of the situation. Those interested in their view on the matter can read: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.commentary.html In particular, the section "Transmittal letter", dated from 1991. Yep, these rule debates have been going on for quite some time. -Jeff
Piet-yukatto.sgf
Description: application/go-sgf
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
