At 09:14 PM 9/17/2008, you wrote:
... . I want to be able to give a tiny set of rules and then let
players loose to
discover things on their own.
i have had good luck with just explaining capure by surrounding and
starting with 9 handicap stones on a 9x9 board (you can't win and
that's a go
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:39 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
> And, of course, once a beginner understands life and death in this
> manner, playing out disputed groups is the most natural way to determine
> the life-or-death status of a group. (And, I submit, the best way no
> matter what ruleset you'r
I was planning to teach Japanese rules (because that's what the books
use). I got the sense from the earlier messages in this list that the
virtual playout is not ad hoc.
David Fotland says:
If we disagree on the group status, you get to play first and make
it live.
If you fail to make it
> - Original Message
> From: Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I really can't see in here what we do if I say my stones are alive
> and you say they're dead, I request resuming the game, you pass
> (because you don't want to fill in your own territory), and then I
> pass. The game
I understand this method, I just don't see where the (translated)
Japanese rules explain such a method.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Ben Shoemaker wrote:
- Original Message
From: Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I really can't see in h
When I teach beginners, I use area scoring on 9x9 until they are advanced
enough to understand territory scoring without disputes (which usually does not
take very long).
Dave
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Peter Drake
Verzonden: do 18-9-2008 6:14
Aan: computer
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 08:54 -0700, Peter Drake wrote:
>
> I was planning to teach Japanese rules (because that's what the books
> use).
Most of the books say nothing at all about how to handle disputes. They
teach an informal territory ruleset. That's a major flaw in the books
that should not b
Eventually, sure -- but I'd like them to have a few games under their
belts before I bring up the issue of different versions of the rules.
For context, this is for a class I'm teaching next semester on Games
in Society. It's a section of "Exploration & Discovery", the
college's freshman se
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:12 -0700, Peter Drake wrote:
> Eventually, sure -- but I'd like them to have a few games under their
> belts before I bring up the issue of different versions of the rules.
Ok, then play some 9x9 games with area scoring rules as Dave Devos
suggested. I was making the sa
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:15 -0700, Ben Shoemaker wrote:
> > - Original Message
>
> > From: Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I really can't see in here what we do if I say my stones are alive
> > and you say they're dead, I request resuming the game, you pass
> > (because you do
i've read suggestions along the lines of teaching "capture go"
first. this should get a lot of the life-and-death intuition under the
belt (plus should help learn counting liberties).
s.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Nowakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:12 -07
Right, that brings me to my other option:
1. explain the AGA rules myself (probably territory counting, but
with no need to recognize dead stones because of the pass stones)
2. have them play for a few days, giving additional advice and
explanatiions; during this time, they'll learn to reco
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 15:15 -0400, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> You need foundations to build on. One foundation is life and death;
> however, life and death is just a simple consequence of the capturing
> rule.
I think the way I learned worked beautifully. I learned with
Tromp/Taylor rules on 9x9.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
It didn't take very long at all before I figured out all the basic cases
for myself.Even the 2 eye rule I had "heard of" and even understood
it from a book, but it was still rather abstract to me until I actually
experienced it for myself. Only when it
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 13:06 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
> > It didn't take very long at all before I figured out all the basic cases
> > for myself.Even the 2 eye rule I had "heard of" and even understood
> > it from a book, but it was still rather abst
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Dailey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:15 -0700, Ben Shoemaker wrote:
> - Original Message
> From: Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I really can't see in here what we do if I say my stones are alive
> and you say they're dead,
A few responses; my apologies in advance for the length.
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:39 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
And, of course, once a beginner understands life and death in this
manner, playing out disputed groups is the most natural way to determine
the life-or-death st
17 matches
Mail list logo
