I have pondered about this before however that page's proposal furthermore changes the value of captures. If black captures x stones, he may play at these x spots up to x times (depending on other and size of eyes), avaraging one per capture, at the very most. In both [territory + captures] (japanese) versus [territory + live stones] (chinese) rules the value per capture is 2. In order to make the mathematical go more similar one should force the other player to play an additional [difference in captures + signed komi] stones before being declared winners. This would be equivalent to just playing til neither player has legal moves and then count the live stones and komi. The remaining eyes is what chinese also covers. This would also handle Nick Wedd's excellent problem.
On 7/27/07, David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I see now, with more 1 point eyes for W, W will play into B's 2 > areas reducing them to one eye each, and when B can make the > capturing moves W can play into its own 1 point eyes, but black can't > play into either its own or W's. > > So, I agree this rule set has very different endgame considerations, > and the intuitive "Proof" on the web page is flawed. > > > Cheers, > David > > > > On 27, Jul 2007, at 2:30 AM, Nick Wedd wrote: > > > In message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Joshua Shriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> What is the difference in Go and Mathematical Go? > >> > >> http://brooklyngoclub.org/jc/rulesgo.html > >> > >> Is Mathamatical Go a subset of Go as the rules look the same to me as > >> regular go. > > > > The "Mathematical Rules of Go" are, like the Chinese rules, > > Japanese rules, NZ rules, Tromp-Taylor rules, Ing rules, etc., a > > set of rules by which a game can be played. > > > > It is often asserted that the games defined by all these sets of > > rules are rather similar, at least when played skilfully. This > > assertion is false. The game defined by the "Mathematical Rules of > > Go" is significantly different from the (rather similar) games > > defined by the other rule sets. You will realise this if you > > consider the position below: > > > > # # # O . O entire 6x6 board > > . . # O O . # to play > > . . # O . O > > # # # O O . > > . . # # O O > > . . . # O . > > > > Using the "Mathematical Rules of Go", O can win with correct play. > > Under any other rule set, # has already won, or can win with > > correct play. This effect of the value of one-point eyes is much > > more significant than that of the "two-stone group tax" mentioned > > by David. > > > > Nick > > -- > > Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
