Thank you for clearing this up.
One more question: Is your "unpopular invention" equivalent to situational
superko?
(after some reading I think that means that a position may not be repeated with
the same player to move)
Dave
________________________________
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Robert Jasiek
Verzonden: vr 24-10-2008 16:57
Aan: computer-go
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Ending games by two passes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In my opinion the goal of a ko rule is to prevent games from not ending.
All restriction rules (about suicide, cyclic repetition, successions of
passes) contribute to that goal. Ko rules do so by restricting cycles,
succession of pass rules do so to avoid very long encores.
> 1: [1-eye-flaw], 2: [triple-ko,...]
> Is it mathematically impossible to construct a ko rule that allows 1 and
> avoid 2? [...]
> superko. It is overly restrictive.
In principle, everything can be expressed by rules. E.g., both 1 and 2
can be avoided by the following, not overly restrictive restriction
rules combination:
- the basic ko rule as the 2 move rule (i.e., passes serve as ko threats)
- the fixed ko rule ("A play may not leave position A and create
position B if any earlier play has left position A and created position B.")
- 3 ending passes
The effect is that 1-eye-flaws can be removed, triple-kos are not
fought, and triple-kos can be removed (one side is dead!).
Fine in theory but nobody likes my very efficient invention :( Maybe you?
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
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/
