On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote: > > > Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed > > to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not > > require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly > > passes should be awarded a point for his skill. > > This is the heart of my argument. I still consider it a feature when my > program passes 100+ times in the endgame.
Is it also a feature when a program cannot play out bent-4, because it "knows" that it is dead, but not why? Which program has more skill, the one that understands how to play it out, or the one that doesn't? Japanese rules, in their pursuit of "efficiency" and "beauty of omission", have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. You can no longer force an opponent to demonstrate his skill on the board; instead you must agree off the board what is alive or dead. And please, for once address this argument: When a player is *losing* under Japanese rules, how does it hurt him to make "unreasonable" invasions? Your argument is no argument at all. Japanese rules provide no benefit in this department. -Jeff _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
