On Dec 11, 2007 4:00 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Erik van der Werf wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2007 6:48 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> In Go however, even if the fundamental game is unchanged you may be > >> playing illegal moves if you are not aware of the superko situation. > >> > > > > And you think superko is part of the fundamental game??? > > > Well, I seem to be saying here that it is NOT part of the fundamental > game.
I'm sorry, then I misunderstood what you were trying to say. > > BTW Several authors here use the words repetition and superko as > > synonyms; I believe this is misleading. > > > They are essentially synonyms - I don't see your point. I think you've just proven my point ;-) In my opinion repetition is a more neutral word. It avoids mixing conditions with consequences. > There is some > question about how you define a position (a board state, or a board > configuration i.e. SSK or PSK) but you can nitpick if you want and say > that superko has nothing to do with positions repeating but I think when > a position repeats it's superko. And when you say it's superko my first thought is that the game is over because one player just made an illegal move... > Are you just trying to nitpick semantics? In a loose informal context this would certainly be nitpicking (e.g. the difference between 'ko' and 'ko-rule'). However when it is about formalizing rules it really helps to be precise and minimize ambiguity (I would think TT-proponents should at least agree with me on this). I really do think it is important to distinguish clearly between conditions (what constitutes a repetition) and consequences (direct loss / continued analysis / no result, etc.). Erik _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
