On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Robert Jasiek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [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?
>I guess more people would like it if triple-kos and other non-abusive long cycles would lead to a tie. Erik _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
