On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:26:34PM +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> > BTW: In my over 50K master games collection I have only seen 2 games
> > with a triple KO. (The whole collection was played out by GnuGo 3.6
> > level 10 to verify/compute the fina
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:26:34PM +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> BTW: In my over 50K master games collection I have only seen 2 games
> with a triple KO. (The whole collection was played out by GnuGo 3.6
> level 10 to verify/compute the final score.) And I have never seen
> other superkos than
Don Dailey wrote:
The only reason to have a KO rule is to prevent by force, long cycles.
So I don't see a point in imposing more restrictive conditions than
necessary.
Talking about superko, I agree at 100%. John Tromp's arguments are
sound and probably the best from the _ruleset's_ point of
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Any ko fight where the only legal move is suicide a group or pass.
It could be die instead of seki for example (which is pass-alive)
Seki is NOT pass-alive.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer
On 10/24/06, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le mardi 24 octobre 2006 10:55, Erik van der Werf a écrit:> On 10/24/06, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > > On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 09:41 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> > > > When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 12:23:14PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> But now we have one itty bitty practical inconvenience. How to you
> conduct tournaments and matches where games can last forever?
>
> Since GO currently has arbitrary KO rules for practical convenience, why
> not introduce another ar
Cool idea Dons! I think taking away the ordinary ko rule in this way would
have too strong a distorting effect on the game. The player who was behind
could win all ko fights, and eventually there would be a ko fight that
neither could afford to lose. Too many games would be drawn. It would end
Le mardi 24 octobre 2006 10:55, Erik van der Werf a écrit :
> On 10/24/06, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 09:41 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> > > > When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group should be
> > > > sacrificed - I wondered if it was
Quoting alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
It seems this kind of strategic consideration/evaluation is not (yet)
part of computer go (and as kyu player, its hardly getting into my game ;)
I think the top programs on CGOS handle ko fights very well on 9x9,
relative to
their strength in gen
Le lundi 23 octobre 2006 22:12, Don Dailey a écrit :
> I'm just looking for a way out of the KO ugliness as a mental exercise.
arg , ko is not ugly :)
A famous go proverb, you can find in the excellent book "go proverbs":
"If you are afraid of ko, don't play go."
And a strong pro (sorry i fo
On 10/24/06, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 09:41 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:> > When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group should be> > sacrificed - I wondered if it was also due to PSK issues.> >
This can also happen with normal rules, if one nee
Le lundi 23 octobre 2006 16:06, Don Dailey a écrit :
> I don't want to beat this one to death - but a side effect I noticed of
> positional superko is that having a move available can make the
> difference between the life or death of a group on the other side of the
> board - not connected in any
12 matches
Mail list logo
