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 view.
But, this is not about the ruleset, its about _the game_. And from the
game's point of view the best thing is letting the players play it out.
"Authority" should only intervene with a prohibition if there
is no other option because the game would not end. So the best would
be NSSK applied only if there is no difference in captures during
the cycle.
Difference in the captures is seen among novices, where one player
attacks a stone that does not require being defended and at the end
the attacking stones are captured in a snapback. The position is
repeated by the player playing correctly. Why should he/she be
punished (forced to play an inferior move) if the loop is an error
of the opponent who has already lost two (or more) points doing it
so he won't do that again?
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 triple KO in real top games. In case of triple
KO all SK definitions lead to the same, so we are probably discussing
principles rather than facts.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
