[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it correct to end games by 2 consecutive passes?
It is correct to end games according to the used rules. Different rules
use different numbers of passes, meanings of passes, or procedures
assiated with passes. Some examples of numers of passes in actually used
rulesets are:
2 passes
3 passes
2 passes + optionally once 2 passes
2 passes + optionally an arbitrary occurrence of yet 2 more passes
2 passes + 2 mandatory further passes
after the first, 2 passes
etc.
One cannot say in general which better because this depends on one's
aims. E.g., if the aim is shortest procedure on the rules level, then
one would choose 2 passes. E.g., if the aim is to always allow each
player a pass as a ko threat while a pass does relieve ko bans
sufficiently, then one might choose 3 passes. E.g., if the first pass
generates a conditional compensation and one wants to allow each player
the filling of 1-sided dame regardless, then one might choose after the
first, 2 passes. Etc.
white is alive [under] rulesets with positional superko if black has not
> enough eyes left to fill as ko threats?
If that's true, I would be disgusted if positional superko would ever be
> accepted as a rule in human vs. human games.
Why would you be disgusted?
The so called 1-eye-flaw occurs in much less than 1 of 10,000,000 games
on the 19x19 board. In the entire history of go, it is reported to have
occurred exactly once on the 9x9 board. Why do you dislike rules that
enable something possible in theory but never occurring in practice?
What do you have against 1-eye-flaw staying on the board at the game
end? a) That it is a group with only 1 eye, b) that it is a group with
only 1 ko, or c) that there is a string with only 1 liberty?
Discussion of (a), (b), and (c):
All rulesets used by humans allow games to end with groups with only 1
liberty. Example:
# O # . # O . O # O
# O # . # O . O # O
# O # . # O . O # O
# O # . # O . O # O
. O # . # O . O # .
This example shows two stable anti-sekis. By symmetry, it would be
superfluous to prolong the game to dissolve either.
If you are disgusted by 1-eye-flaw, then you should be even more
disgusted by anti-sekis. I.e., you are disgusted by all rulesets
currently used by humans.
Strings with 1 liberty at the game end can also occur in hane-sekis,
double ko sekis, quadruple kos, etc.
Maybe you would human rules to be changed by ca so called greedy rule
like "A player may not pass if there is at least one string with exactly
1 liberty on the board." Such would dissolve all those disgusting
things. One can even be more brutal in rules design like dissolving all
those disgusting ordinary sekis, too. :)
If you want to criticise positional superko, then state your first order
aims! Which are they? "I hate 1-eye-flaw!"? Why should one particular
shape be that all-important while we do not know some 100^500 other
shapes yet? List them all, and then tell us what makes 1-eye-flaw so
special :)
More importantly, why are you worried about a shape at all? Shapes are
the consequences of move-sequences and strategic decisions, see
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003.html
for a basis with that I defined "eye" formally. Write down your
disgusting rules with such a design to enable yourself to define
particular shapes in the first place so that you won't overlook any of
your potentially hated disgusting shapes...
BTW, positional superko IS accepted in some human rulesets like Chinese,
Simplified Ing, or World Mind Sports Games 2008.
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
