Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:37 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
Do you see any mechanical issues with these rules, or do they still seem
ad-hoc?
"group" is ill-defined. It can mean indivisibly connected stones or
loosely connected ones. In the false eye case, for example, there
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:37 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
> Do you see any mechanical issues with these rules, or do they still seem
> ad-hoc?
"group" is ill-defined. It can mean indivisibly connected stones or
loosely connected ones. In the false eye case, for example, there are
two indiviual grou
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 19:41 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
The only exception is the "ridiculous invasion"
scenario that started this thread--that's the only case that I have seen
in which the "virtual"ness of the playout matters.
That's a gross simplification and untrue. C
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 19:41 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
> I teach informal territory rules with "virtual" play out. However in
> practice, I should note, the difference between territory rules with
> *actual* (not virtual) playout and area rules with actual playout ends
> up being identical. The o
A few responses; my apologies in advance for the length.
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:39 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
And, of course, once a beginner understands life and death in this
manner, playing out disputed groups is the most natural way to determine
the life-or-death st
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:39 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
> And, of course, once a beginner understands life and death in this
> manner, playing out disputed groups is the most natural way to determine
> the life-or-death status of a group. (And, I submit, the best way no
> matter what ruleset you'r
At 09:14 PM 9/17/2008, you wrote:
... . I want to be able to give a tiny set of rules and then let
players loose to
discover things on their own.
i have had good luck with just explaining capure by surrounding and
starting with 9 handicap stones on a 9x9 board (you can't win and
that's a go
Peter Drake wrote:
I'm inclined to agree, but it bothers me to have to explain life and
death before scoring. Life and death therefore become part of the
rules rather than an emergent consequences of the rules . I want to
be able to give a tiny set of rules and then let players loose to
di
I'm inclined to agree, but it bothers me to have to explain life and
death before scoring. Life and death therefore become part of the
rules rather than an emergent consequences of the rules . I want to
be able to give a tiny set of rules and then let players loose to
discover things on the
--
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:56 AM
> > > To: computer-go
> > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
> >
Don Dailey wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
Dave Dyer wrote:
Japanese: bad.
I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules
are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the
last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct
score with
EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Don Dailey
Verzonden: di 16-9-2008 19:47
Aan: computer-go
Onderwerp: RE: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
I bet with practice and using Chinese scoring, you could very rapidly
calculate the score without touching the board.
In fact, if I were trying to b
Nick Wedd wrote:
> If there are too many to
be counted as they lie in the lid, I would take this to mean that the
opponent is entitled to tip them out and count them.
In EGF / German tournaments (with open prisoners prescribed), I do it
when necessary for my updated positional judgement. I do
David Fotland wrote:
> Professional
players can do this 100 moves from the end of the game and typically be
within a point or 2 of the final score.
Nice myth, but I doubt it. Rather very strongly it depends on the kind
of position. In some kinds of early middle game positions (150 to 200
move
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Dailey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
You also cannot score Japanese from just the board position unless you
have a prisoner count of both sides. This state has to be carried
either explicitly (by a bowl full of stones) or implicitly by a complete
game record.
So
inal Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:56 AM
> > To: computer-go
> > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
> >
> >
Knowing who is winning requires calculating the value of each endgame
position and understanding the best order to play into them. Professional
players can do this 100 moves from the end of the game and typically be
within a point or 2 of the final score.
I'm AGA 3 Dan, and I'm happy if I can get
You also cannot score Japanese from just the board position unless you
have a prisoner count of both sides. This state has to be carried
either explicitly (by a bowl full of stones) or implicitly by a complete
game record.
So I suppose it's possible to have what appears to be 2 identical
posit
MAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:56 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
>
> David Fotland wrote:
> > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is
> pr
David Fotland wrote:
> Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is preserved
Japanese counting destroys the position by
- removal of dead stones
- filling in of (most) prisoners
- rearrangements of stones
- rearrangements of borders
- border stone colour changes
After the rem
The formalized rules are the "tortured details" I referred to. I've
played thousands of games of Go, and I've never even seen any of those
versions of the rules.
The Japanese rules I refer to are the informal procedures I use every
time I play, both to estimate the score during the game, and at
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> In chess, there is some logic that all games end (at least in
> principle)
> with with repetition, stalemate, or checkmate. The 50 move rule is a
> "practical substitute" for the repetition rule based on the assumption
> that these games woul
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:01 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> > 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 eve
I agree -- the AGA rules are quite clear. Note that the British Go
Association has recently adopted the same rules.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:12 AM, David Fotland wrote:
Finally, a plug for American rules: American rules are the same as
chinese
rule
the end without
changing the score.
David
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gian-Carlo Pascutto
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:02 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes u
> 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 poi
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 07:57 -0400, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
> > Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the
> > best rulesets for humans.
>
> Ok, tired old topic, tired old response: Japanese rules aren't good for
>
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
> Dave Dyer wrote:
> >> Japanese: bad.
> >
> > I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules
> > are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the
> > last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct
> > score
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
> Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the
> best rulesets for humans.
Ok, tired old topic, tired old response: Japanese rules aren't good for
beginners. They also aren't good at resolving disputes (genuine
dispu
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Li Li
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
This case is simple. You needn't capture and remove the "dead" stone
actually before the game ends. If you think it's alive, you have the
right to "resume" to game after "double pass" to make it alive (e.g.
make two eyes).
But I
Strongly agreed on "its is a social game not a mathematical abstraction". As
well-known, there have been several contentious very important matches which
may even change the direction of Japanese Go history.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Magnus Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I would also
Strongly agreed on "its is a social game not a mathematical
abstraction". As well-known, there have been several contentious very
important matches which may even change the direction of Japanese Go
history.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Magnus Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I would also
I would also like to add the following:
The real answer to this question about how to end a game with japanese
rules is that it over a longer course of time it is solved through
social interaction. If someone refuses to score games correctly you
simply never play a game with that person aga
Dave Dyer wrote:
> The Japanese rules
are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the
last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct
score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation.
I shall assume that with "meaningless" you do not mean dame because,
under Japanese R
This case is simple. You needn't capture and remove the "dead" stone
actually before the game ends. If you think it's alive, you have the right
to "resume" to game after "double pass" to make it alive (e.g. make two
eyes).
But I have to say, there are two many arbitrary "judging" rules in Japanese
Dave Dyer wrote:
Japanese: bad.
I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules
are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the
last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct
score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation.
The tortured details, while no
>Japanese: bad.
I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules
are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the
last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct
score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation.
The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely m
Japanese rules have two procedures to stop the game and to verify
the score (these names are my personal, not official).
In the case you mentioned, your opponent has no needs to remove the
stones, if he/she thought the stones are dead (exactly speaking,
he/she _can_ make the stones dead).
So,
38 matches
Mail list logo
