I don't mind your terminology, in fact I feel like it is a good way to distinguish the two different things. It is just that I considiered one thing wrongly used instead of the other for the discussion here.
But if we go with the link you are suggesting here: Shouldnt that number at most be 722^#positions? Since adding a black or a white stone is something fundamentally different? 2017-08-09 20:50 GMT+02:00 John Tromp <john.tr...@gmail.com>: > > And what is the connection between the number of "positions" and the > number > > of games > > The number of games is at most 361^#positions. > > > or even solving games? In the game trees we do not care about > > positions, but about situations. > > We care about lots of things, including intersections, stones, > liberties, strings, positions, sets of previous positions. > > > I'm actually surprised that this "absurd" to you... > > I said that referring to a board configuration together with the set > of all previously occurring board configurations (and turn to move) as > "position" is absurd. > We need a simple word to denote a board configuration, and "position" fits > that requirement. A good word for all the relevant historical > information leading up to a position is "situation". > > -John > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
