In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason House
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Oct 24, 2008, at 11:23 AM, "Erik van der Werf"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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
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
I'd prefer to see them treated luke a seki. I'd only want a tie if the
capture cycle changed the score back and forth between B+0.5 and W+0.5
This implies that someone or something is capable of calculating the
score. But a cycle can occur long before the endgame makes the score
calculable.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
