On Dec 10, 2007 5:23 PM, Álvaro Begué <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 10, 2007 11:05 AM, Erik van der Werf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Or simply don't use superko. Normal rules work fine with only some > > minimal knowledge of the last move. Long cycles are not an issue > > because they may repeat multiple times without altering the inevitable > > outcome (which, e.g., can be decided on the server side after n-fold > > repetition). > I am not sure what you mean by "normal rules".
Most human players I know use informal Japanese rules (so this is what is normal for me, and probably most players in the Netherlands). OC formalizing them is non-trivial, but certainly not impossible. In practice w.r.t. long-cycles these rules are in pretty good agreement with traditional Asian rules (Chinese/Japanese). > Are three kos a draw? What > about other long cycles? To formalize this in the following I assume repetitions are always on even plies (so the player to move must be the same). For long cycles (anything greater than two moves) you need to distinguish between the following 3 types: 1) Winning cycle: Each cycle you gain prisoners. (or equivalently, you pass more, underlining your intent not to continue the cycle) 2) Balanced cycle: both sides capture the same number of opponent stones. 3) Losing cycle: Each cycle you loose prisoners. (or equivalently, you pass less, underlining your malicious intent to prevent a normal game-end) The outcome, to be determined after one or possibly more than one cycle, is (1) win, (2) draw, or (3) loss. > It is not my intention to sound confrontational. I really don't know how > other rule sets deal with tricky situations. No problem. Erik _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
