And so we enter the "second phase" ...
On 5, Jan 2007, at 8:50 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
I think you are mistaken for the real reason of the 'second phase',
where he who passes has to pay a point. This 'second phase' only
comes into effect after both sides have passed. It's to solve
disputes in
On 5, Jan 2007, at 8:50 AM, Mark Boon wrote:
How would you feel if your opponent played out possible all ko-
threats at the end of the game?
I once played a game against a Chinese graduate student who did
exactly that. I was quite impressed with how thorough he was, as if
that kind of com
Mark Boon wrote:
> How
would you feel if your opponent played out possible all ko-threats at
the end of the game?
I am happy to win the game, of course.
the fact that we humans feel bad doing something like
that
Not "we humans". I don't feel bad when my opponent does it.
When answers are n
In our club we estimate twice the komi for sente equal to a handicap
stone, except for the first handicap stone one, which is just one time
the komi.
Using a komi of 6.5 for sente amounts to:
Hand. Value
1 = 6.5
2 = 19.5
3 = 32.5
4 = 45.5
5 = 58.5
6 = 71.5
7 = 84.5
8 =
Le jeudi 4 janvier 2007 22:37, Don Dailey a écrit :
> I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap
> game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one
> was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously
> it doesn't make sense to play fo
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
i think that the attached initial (13-stone) setup requires life to be
made in the center
rather than the sides or corners, but it looks difficult. a stronger
player can comment, perhaps?
It should be possible to live with an attachment at the 3-3 poin
I think the whole discussion about Japanese vs. Chinese scoring
is moot in the context of "silly" invasions.
If my opponent passes and
1) I am ahead ... I pass and win.
2) I am behind ... I may start an invasion if I think I have a
chance; loosing a couple more points (Japanese) does not matter
>> If 2 perfect players played a game where one
>> was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously
>> it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player
>> be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?
>
>
> This is the same as asking
On 4-jan-07, at 18:53, David Doshay wrote:
I see it as perfectly fair that the bot with
the better ability to read, and thus knows it can pass, should be
rewarded for that reading skill.
I think you are mistaken for the real reason of the 'second phase',
where he who passes has to pay a po
On 4-jan-07, at 19:37, Don Dailey wrote:
If 2 perfect players played a game where one
was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory
(obviously
it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player
be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?
This
Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Like in example from tournament game where a bot makes hundreds of
useless moves. Rules that encourage that simply are not good.
The only way to prevent this is a mandatory pass whenever a pass
is a possible perfect play. When you think about it, you would
furthermore wan
Just add a new child only when parent is visited more times than X.
You will loose only a minimal amount of information.
Hope this helps :)
Lukasz
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/comp
well, i'm pretty sure that against a top player i would need around 20
stones to have much of a shot, but if I remember correctly, at the
professional level, a 17-18 stone free placement is needed to take the
entire board. A 9 stone handicap is not nearly enough to take the whole
board no matter
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:37:08PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
>
> I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap
> game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one
> was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously
> it doesn't make sense
opponent and eventually could have passed for free. Had game been under
Japanese rules I would have been 'forced' to think whether reply was
needed and thus think a lot longer time for replies and possibly lost on
time because reply would have been needed probably too often.
Conclusion: Under Chi
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:08 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
> there's a nice rule of thumb that says that you should only
> play moves whose outcome results in your opponent playing
> *what you think is the best move*. there's simply nothing
> more irritating than someone attempting an unreasonable
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
