> The japanese rules have problems and there have been cases where 2 > professionals argue about the > outcome of a game. They are not clearly defined for obscure cases. In > addition, they are not simple. Ing > rules and chinese rules are both reasonable sets of rules because there is no > room for argument about who > wins. Japanese rules in my opinion shouldn't > ever be used for tournements.
to be pedantic (and i think that we're well past that point anyway), if i were to play a professional, he'd know the outcome of the game at, say, move 20. he'd be pretty sure by move 5, but it'd be certain by move 20. the rest would be yose for him, essentially. and what we're really talking about here is whether or not yose that doesn't change the score of the game is either a) fun to watch or b) fun to play against. computers don't care who they play against, and i haven't seen the kind of criticism that would lead me to believe that the general public is all that hostile toward the way computers play, but in any case, it's simply a matter of perspective between the two players involved and the level of play that they're at. playing a stone at a vital point may kill a 20-point group, but if one of those two players doesn't realize this, they will likely painfully play it out until it is clearly dead. the first time their opponent passes while they play inside their own dead territory, they should realize that to their opponent, the game is over. if they think that they can recusitate the dead, there's no harm in trying -- if their reading is that far different from their opponent, it's likely that the game score won't be close enough for rules differences to matter. s. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
