On 09.09.2015 16:45, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:
I'm not convinced that it's reducible
I am convinced it is,...
[...] to [...] a [...] set of principles
...where the principles need some dynamic input, such as reading, when necessary.
I don't think it can currently be done for a static Go position
It can be done. See Positional Judgement 1 - Territory, and I am writing Vol. 2. The principles therein are written for humans and need translation to mathematical definitions (rather easy for me) and additional work on removing fake contradictions (which arise due to ambiguity in the human-orientated language, or not yet spelled out order of priority). However, the hard part has not even been formulating the principles but the decades of study raising my conceptual insight about fundamentals of go theory to a level where principles just fall out as an extra benefit.
Static positions must be understood as being quiet or presuming quiescience sequences (settling fights until the position is quiet). I.e., I am not dogmatic about distinguishing static from dynamic positions. Rather static positions can require some dynamic input / reading. (Not surprisingly; quiescience has been familiar to CG for a long time.)
I wish you the best of luck producing the set of principles.
Luck is useless. What has helped me was careful analytical study of my own (often methodical) thinking.
-- robert jasiek _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
