Jean-loup Gailly wrote:
I would write the proof as follows.
Assume x is the value of one move
Yours is not a proof because what follows is not just a single move of
value x but a game tree of moves of various sizes, which need not even
decrease constantly. Many years ago, Barry Phease was a bit farther by
assuming a constant decrement and forming a sum. His was not a proof
either because sizes of moves in the paths of the game tree need not
decrease constantly.
Rather than being proofs, such arguments are plausible approximations.
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
