OK, I see now, with more 1 point eyes for W, W will play into B's 2
areas reducing them to one eye each, and when B can make the
capturing moves W can play into its own 1 point eyes, but black can't
play into either its own or W's.
So, I agree this rule set has very different endgame considerations,
and the intuitive "Proof" on the web page is flawed.
Cheers,
David
On 27, Jul 2007, at 2:30 AM, Nick Wedd wrote:
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joshua Shriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
What is the difference in Go and Mathematical Go?
http://brooklyngoclub.org/jc/rulesgo.html
Is Mathamatical Go a subset of Go as the rules look the same to me as
regular go.
The "Mathematical Rules of Go" are, like the Chinese rules,
Japanese rules, NZ rules, Tromp-Taylor rules, Ing rules, etc., a
set of rules by which a game can be played.
It is often asserted that the games defined by all these sets of
rules are rather similar, at least when played skilfully. This
assertion is false. The game defined by the "Mathematical Rules of
Go" is significantly different from the (rather similar) games
defined by the other rule sets. You will realise this if you
consider the position below:
# # # O . O entire 6x6 board
. . # O O . # to play
. . # O . O
# # # O O .
. . # # O O
. . . # O .
Using the "Mathematical Rules of Go", O can win with correct play.
Under any other rule set, # has already won, or can win with
correct play. This effect of the value of one-point eyes is much
more significant than that of the "two-stone group tax" mentioned
by David.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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/
