Le mardi 24 octobre 2006 10:55, Erik van der Werf a écrit:
> On 10/24/06, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 09:41 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> > > > When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group should be
> > > > sacrificed - I wondered if it was also due to PSK issues.
> > > >
> >
> > This can also happen with normal rules, if one need a ko threat and the
> > only possible move is to fill one eye. Nothing specific to superko.
>
>
> Really? Please enlighten us with an example.
Any ko fight where the only legal move is suicide a group or pass.
That does not convince me at all; present a concrete example.
Under normal rules, if a ko is left undefended it can eventually be recaptured (possibly after resumption in the case that two successive passes lead to a game stop). (BTW You are aware that Japanese rules even make this explicit with their 'pass for a ko'?) If you were right, then the moonshine shape would have been far more problematic.
It could be die instead of seki for example (which is pass-alive)
I have no idea what you mean by this.
I agree this is a bad threat, but PASS is not a threat, and would
result in losing the ko too.
"too" -> so the ko would be lost in both cases? Then you clearly have missed the point.
So you would play a move that sacrifices a pass alive group, which does not threaten anything and thus can be ignored by your opponent, only increasing your loss (compared to passing), in the idle hope that the opponent would not follow up on his first ko-capture? What utter nonsense...
I see nothing specific in superko here.
Then I can only conclude that you did not look careful.
Erik
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
