On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:37 -0700, Ross Werner wrote: > Do you see any mechanical issues with these rules, or do they still seem > ad-hoc?
"group" is ill-defined. It can mean indivisibly connected stones or loosely connected ones. In the false eye case, for example, there are two indiviual groups involved, but one umbrella group under consideration. Your rules as stated are already more complicated than I'd want to expose a beginner too. Any ruleset that requires agreement with restoration is a non-starter when "just play" is the alternative. To be honest, I don't really want to get in a back and forth with you while you implement/design your rules. Trying to formalize Japanese rules with some subset of being (logical, complete, simple) is a well travelled path. Ikeda, Lasker-Maas, Jasiek, Spite, Japanese-1989, Kee -- these are just some of the names that roll of the top of my head. I only suggested that you implement your rules so you could see just how hard it is, but you'd also do well to study those that have gone before you. Then again, I'd recommend you not go down that path at all :) > When two beginners play each other, in real life (not on a computer), > there is definitely a drawback to having to remember the original > position. However, I believe there are also slight drawbacks to > beginners when using area scoring--and those drawbacks are present in > every game played, whereas the drawbacks of position restoring are only > present in cases of a dispute. For territory rules, there is a drawback in every game played -- the beginner is unsure when to end the game, yet the rules tell him up front that he needs to stop early. Experimentation and seeing things to the logical end are punished. -Jeff _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
