On Dec 11, 2007 2:18 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> 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.). > > > Ok, let's get into semantics. Is superko an illegal move?
Again, I regard superko as a concept that refers to a special class of rules for dealing with repetition. So no, it is not an illegal move. > Is it > simply forbidden or is it part of the rules that you lose immediately if > you play it? In card games that is called an irregularity and there > are separate rules to deal with these. > > If you make some other illegal move what happens? For instance if you > take one the opponents stones and place it on the board? Do you lose > immediately or do you get your hand slapped with the objection that "you > can't make that move, play something real!" OC we have general tournament rules and rules for dealing with unsportsmanships behavior... However, slapping you on the hand and giving you the option to alter your move does not fundamentally change anything to the assumed illegality of a particular move. For optimal play you still had to play elsewhere, hence for a sufficiently informed player the effect is the same. Traditional rules (without superko) can have fundamentally different game outcomes. Social etiquette alone does not suffice to remove these differences. The fundamental problem with superko is failure to distinguish between balanced and unbalanced cycles. In an unbalanced cycle, such as send-2-return-1, your suggestion "you can't make that move, play something real!" is fine. In a balanced cycle, such as triple-ko, this is not the obvious thing to say. Erik _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
