On 25.01.2016 09:11, Mark Goldfain wrote:
I haven't heard of anyone else doing similarly interesting work on the theoretical foundations of the game.
Sorry, but this is your fault. Where Tromp excels is Go combinatorics, a field that does not equate the more general "the theoretical foundations of the game". For the latter (and excluding computer go research), there have been a few researchers with more contributions, even if you permit formal theory only and exclude more general math research (e.g. by John Conway) also applicable to go.
> One of the most frustrating things about writing a program to play go > is that the rules are a bit blurry. You say so after having read my commentaries? http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html On 25.01.2016 10:15, Olivier Teytaud wrote: > the Chinese rules Please do not confuse the flawed Chinese Rules http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/c2002.pdf http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/c2002com.pdf with the flawless Area Scoring in general. -- robert jasiek _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
