> Disputes that beginners get into are another class of disputes that > these rules cannot easily resolve without the beginner feeling as if > they were being "handled." You pretty much have to rely on his good > nature to eventually just accept the result without questioning it. At > some point you say, "trust me, you really did lose here even though you > cannot understand why."
This is just really really bad. Not only will it annoy the hell out of the beginner in question, the problems will not only occur with beginners but every time someone starts to play the game in a matter that deviates a bit from common practise. Like, let's say, a computer. Add in the factor that UCT bots like to play towards half point victories, and you have a recipe for pain. > It's probably just as bad in chess. You have the arbitrary 50 move draw > rule, castling, en-passant, and the insufficient material draw. For > those who may not know, there is a class of positions that cannot be won > no matter how stupid the opponent plays and these are draws and you have > to know them. To more advanced players these are very simple to > understand, but to the beginner they can be confusing. But the beginner could play out the game without complications. The rules can be perfectly implemented and are unambiguous. This is a huge difference to Japanese rules. > So you actually have a situation where you can have a won game, play it > perfectly, but are forced to accept a draw anyway. If you have an endgame that isn't winnable due to the 50 move rule, it isn't a won endgame. It's as simple as that. You should play towards an endgame that is winnable by the rules. I really don't even see the analogy here at all. -- GCP _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
