I disagree. The notion of one eye is useful. A group with one eye has an advantage in a fight against a group with none.
I don't see that it's incorrect, and I think it is "designed" to help beginners recognize life. Their first mental draft of the concept of "eye" is probably "a point surrounded in all directions (including diagonally) by stones of one color", which is a sufficient but not a necessary criterion. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Robert Jasiek <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24.10.2014 21:47, Peter Drake wrote: > >> you can still have ONE eye in a group that is not alive. >> > > This is bad informal abuse of the word "eye" designed to confuse ourselves. > > > -- > robert jasiek > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > -- Peter Drake https://sites.google.com/a/lclark.edu/drake/
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
