Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
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.
Perhaps I should use the word "chain" then, which I think more
explicitly defines what I mean. I agree that this eliminates some cases
(such as the false eye scenario) from consideration.
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 understand your weariness to continue. You and I have gone down a
similar path once before on this list, and probably numerous times
elsewhere.
In any case, most of the above that I have studied appear to be attempts
to make Japanese rules logical and complete; do any of them specifically
address endgame disputes (in more detail than the 1989 rules)? I would
be interested in reading more on their treatment of the same. (Spight
rules for example, I think, address the issue of "when does the game
end?", but not the issue of handling disputes with territory scoring?)
> 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 :)
To be sure, I am only interested in a clear set of logical rules that
works well for all the scenarios that a beginner is likely to encounter.
I am not interested in the details of endgame kos or infinitesimals or
the like. I am, however, interested in dispute resolution, particularly
in implementation details for servers that beginners are likely to play
on. (This may, in fact, not be merely a theoretical exercise for me.)
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.
The rules tell him up front that he needs to stop when his opponent
passes--not "early". If two beginners experiment to the logical end with
equal passes, they are not punished. The only thing that is punished is
attempting to kill additional stones while the opponent continues to
pass. Surely there are cases where this will happen, but equally
certainly it will not be in every game played.
~ Ross
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
