Re: [computer-go] Differences..
I think we already had that discussion once... These rules completely screw up the notion of territory, as e.g. three single points are better than one three-point-block. My proposal would be a fifth rule that instead of moving you are allowed to return one prisoner. But then, you could as well just allow passes and use (only) stone counting... Benjamin At 07:05 PM 7/26/2007, you wrote: 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. not sure. but i belive that the last rule needs to be qualified with the statement that the numbers of captured stones must be the same. thanks --- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 3 Monate kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=00 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Differences..
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 . Oentire 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/
Re: [computer-go] Differences..
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 . Oentire 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/
Re: [computer-go] Differences..
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 . Oentire 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/
Re: [computer-go] Differences..
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 rules described here are not mathematical go, but no-pass go. In mathematical go a move consists of a board play or by handing the opponent back a captured stone. This is equivalent to stone scoring. -- Barry Phease mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://barry.phease.org.nz ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Differences..
Willing to accept the intuitive proof for the moment, what I see is that the key differences are that 1) there is no komi (black giving points to white for playing first) 2) there is a 2 point penalty for each living group. Otherwise it does look like this is similar to any other Go rules that include positional super-ko. My favorite line: this is a great book if you're a serious mathematician, and a completely baffling one otherwise. Cheers, David On 26, Jul 2007, at 7:05 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote: 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. -Josh ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Differences..
Where does the two-point penalty come from? It's not directly stated in the rules, so presumably it emerges from the four simple rules. Actually, neither the two-point penalty nor Komi are meaningful - there is no count to which any penalties could be added or subtracted. Passing, suicide, and superko are prohibited. Available moves eventually diminish to zero. The person with the smallest territory loses, unable to make a legal move. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster - Original Message From: David Doshay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:02:17 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Differences.. Willing to accept the intuitive proof for the moment, what I see is that the key differences are that 1) there is no komi (black giving points to white for playing first) 2) there is a 2 point penalty for each living group. Otherwise it does look like this is similar to any other Go rules that include positional super-ko. My favorite line: this is a great book if you're a serious mathematician, and a completely baffling one otherwise. Cheers, David On 26, Jul 2007, at 7:05 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote: 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. -Josh ___ 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/ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Differences..
The 2 points per living group comes from the fact that in order to avoid loosing, one plays into one's own territory until down to 2 eyes. While legal to fill one, that leads to capture, so it won't be done. As you say, there is no other counting needed because the smaller territory fills first. Cheers, David On 26, Jul 2007, at 8:25 PM, terry mcintyre wrote: Where does the two-point penalty come from? It's not directly stated in the rules, so presumably it emerges from the four simple rules. Actually, neither the two-point penalty nor Komi are meaningful - there is no count to which any penalties could be added or subtracted. Passing, suicide, and superko are prohibited. Available moves eventually diminish to zero. The person with the smallest territory loses, unable to make a legal move. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster - Original Message From: David Doshay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:02:17 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Differences.. Willing to accept the intuitive proof for the moment, what I see is that the key differences are that 1) there is no komi (black giving points to white for playing first) 2) there is a 2 point penalty for each living group. Otherwise it does look like this is similar to any other Go rules that include positional super-ko. My favorite line: this is a great book if you're a serious mathematician, and a completely baffling one otherwise. Cheers, David On 26, Jul 2007, at 7:05 PM, Joshua Shriver wrote: 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. -Josh ___ 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/ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Differences..
So, with these exchanges and just a little more thought, the part of The Alternating Rule that is in red: The first player who cannot put down a stone without breaking a rule loses the game is not the way the game would actually be played. It would be more accurate to add something about choosing not to add another stone, which would cover the decision not to fill one of your own last eyes. Cheers, David On 26, Jul 2007, at 9:12 PM, David Doshay wrote: The 2 points per living group comes from the fact that in order to avoid loosing, one plays into one's own territory until down to 2 eyes. While legal to fill one, that leads to capture, so it won't be done. As you say, there is no other counting needed because the smaller territory fills first. Cheers, David On 26, Jul 2007, at 8:25 PM, terry mcintyre wrote: Where does the two-point penalty come from? It's not directly stated in the rules, so presumably it emerges from the four simple rules. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
