I don't mind your terminology, in fact I feel like it is a good way to
distinguish the two different things. It is just that I considiered one
thing wrongly used instead of the other for the discussion here.
But if we go with the link you are suggesting here:
Shouldnt that number at most be 722^#positions? Since adding a black or a
white stone is something fundamentally different?
2017-08-09 20:50 GMT+02:00 John Tromp <john.tr...@gmail.com>:
> > And what is the connection between the number of "positions" and the
> > of games
> The number of games is at most 361^#positions.
> > or even solving games? In the game trees we do not care about
> > positions, but about situations.
> We care about lots of things, including intersections, stones,
> liberties, strings, positions, sets of previous positions.
> > I'm actually surprised that this "absurd" to you...
> I said that referring to a board configuration together with the set
> of all previously occurring board configurations (and turn to move) as
> "position" is absurd.
> We need a simple word to denote a board configuration, and "position" fits
> that requirement. A good word for all the relevant historical
> information leading up to a position is "situation".
> Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go mailing list