Hi Mark, I think it's Petri who was the condescending one.
- Don Mark Boon wrote: > > On 22-jan-08, at 10:31, Erik van der Werf wrote: > >> On Jan 22, 2008 11:14 AM, Petri Pitkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> 9x9 is not Go >> >> At some point in history the common board size was 17x17. >> Are you suggesting that 17x17 wasn't Go either? >> >> In the future, when humans are consistently defeated by computers on >> 19x19 and the remaining players move up to a more 'interesting' size, >> will you be claiming that 19x19 isn't Go either? >> > > Come on, there's no need to be so condescending. > > Of course you can call any game played by the same rules the same > game. 3x3 Go is as interesting as tic-tac-toe. But since it's played > by the same rules it could be called Go. Do you really think Petri > doesn't understand this? It seems obvious to me he means 9x9 Go is not > nearly as interesting as 19x19 Go. 19 is the default size so when we > talk about Go we generally mean 19x19 Go. It's fair to assume people > on this list understand that. > > So I'll support Petri in this. 9x9 Go is not Go. > > Sure, 9x9 Go is still a very interesting game. One that can be a > challenge even for the strongest players in the world. But in my > opinion it's not nearly as interesting as 19x19 Go. Now if that's a > point you'd like to argue, fine. But no need to be so patronizing. > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
