Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jason House wrote: I run some really dumb bots online that play perfectly fine blitz games (10s/move) with Chinese rules and it still drives humans insane because the computer doesn't stop playing. People resign won games in endgame because they can't take it. There is some value in reducing the number of moves in a game. 10 seconds/moves is not really blitz. If the program plays stupid invasions (I don't know if its is the case of your program) that can be annoying if it goes up to 50 unnecessary moves or more. As a user, I like to count. I don't like computer resignation. It emulates human honor codes. For a human it is very humiliating to be forced to play a losing game for a long time, but computers have no honor, they should play _fast_ and without burning out ko threats just because there is nothing to lose. My favorite computer behavior as a user: gnugo with no resign at a fast level (max 2 sec/mov). Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/13/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you on this as far as etiquette is concerned. In on-line
computer vs computer games resignation is honorable but against humans
a computer should simply play fast - up the level of it's ability.A
strong computer player can pass and reckon for dead stones if that's the
protocol, or it can just play rapidly.I think many players like to
see a complete game and feel as if there were just a little bit
cheated by an early resignation.
Of course a really weak computer shouldn't be expected to do more than
an equally weak human. If a computer program doesn't have a feel for
dead stones, who is winning and who is losing then the best it can do
is play the game out and preferable it should play relatively fast if
possible. In this case it's the human's turn to be honorable and not
berate the stupidity of the programmer making condescending remarks,
etc.Note that this isn't about respecting a program - it's just a
machine. But behind every program is a human being who may have put
some sweat into the programming.
Thankfully, nobody has ever been mean about my dumb bots. After monitoring
the usage of the bots I went and added a time control similar to what you
say.
I'd actually be curious to hear how other people have done it. The handling
of absolute time, byo-yomi time, and canadian time is non-trivial since
there are some strange ways that the commands work. This may be a KGS
quirk, but I think any quirks specific to KGS are because of shortcomings in
GTPv2. For example, when main time expires, kgs sends time_left color 0.
Below is the key portion of my time management code. I have not tested it
in all situations and I'm sure there's room for improvement.
+ void timeLeft(color c, double seconds, int stonesToPlay){
+ // note that seconds could be zero as main time for byo yomi
times expire
+ double minTime = 1.0;
+ if (stonesToPlay 0){
+ // Candadian time is in effect
+ double lagBuffer = 2.0;
+ nextMoveThinkTime = max(
(seconds/stonesToPlay)-lagBuffer,
min(1.0,(seconds/stonesToPlay)) );
+ }
+ else{
+ // Main time or byo yomi
+ int safetyBuffer = 60;
+ int minMovesLeft = 10;
+ nextMoveThinkTime = max(
3*(seconds-safetyBuffer)/max(assumedMovesLeft/2,minMovesLeft), 1.0 );
+ }
+ nextMoveThinkTime = min(maxThinkTimePerMove, nextMoveThinkTime);
+ debug(timing) hberr.writefln(Conclusion: next move think time
should be %s (assumed moves left = %s, time left = %s, stonesToPlay =
%s), nextMoveThinkTime, assumedMovesLeft, seconds, stonesToPlay);
+ }
+ void kgsTimeSettings(char[] mode, int seconds){
+ assert(mode==absolute);
+ timeLeft(singletonColorBlack, seconds, 0);
+ }
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
I agree with you on this as far as etiquette is concerned. In on-line computer vs computer games resignation is honorable but against humans a computer should simply play fast - up the level of it's ability.A strong computer player can pass and reckon for dead stones if that's the protocol, or it can just play rapidly.I think many players like to see a complete game and feel as if there were just a little bit cheated by an early resignation. Of course a really weak computer shouldn't be expected to do more than an equally weak human. If a computer program doesn't have a feel for dead stones, who is winning and who is losing then the best it can do is play the game out and preferable it should play relatively fast if possible. In this case it's the human's turn to be honorable and not berate the stupidity of the programmer making condescending remarks, etc.Note that this isn't about respecting a program - it's just a machine. But behind every program is a human being who may have put some sweat into the programming. - Don On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 13:15 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: Jason House wrote: I run some really dumb bots online that play perfectly fine blitz games (10s/move) with Chinese rules and it still drives humans insane because the computer doesn't stop playing. People resign won games in endgame because they can't take it. There is some value in reducing the number of moves in a game. 10 seconds/moves is not really blitz. If the program plays stupid invasions (I don't know if its is the case of your program) that can be annoying if it goes up to 50 unnecessary moves or more. As a user, I like to count. I don't like computer resignation. It emulates human honor codes. For a human it is very humiliating to be forced to play a losing game for a long time, but computers have no honor, they should play _fast_ and without burning out ko threats just because there is nothing to lose. My favorite computer behavior as a user: gnugo with no resign at a fast level (max 2 sec/mov). Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
I am playing competitive tennis-table. There were for years a heated debatte if the ball-diamater should be increased from 38 to 40mm and if the set shall go to 11 instead of to 21. A few years ago, the decision was taken to play with the 40mm ball to make the game slower and in turn to reduce the set to 11. Since then Chinese, Japanese, Korean and the rest of the world play with 40mm and stop at 11. After a short transition time, there is no discussion at all about the new rules. Tennis, soccer, chess is played all over the world in the same way. Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? Is there not something like a FIDE or a FIFA ? Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Hi Chrilly, Take a look at this list, there are already maybe more than 100 posts on this subject. While I agree with you, just don't worry, almost all computer go games are with the same set of rules, just ignore the rest. Cheers, Sylvain 2007/7/12, chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am playing competitive tennis-table. There were for years a heated debatte if the ball-diamater should be increased from 38 to 40mm and if the set shall go to 11 instead of to 21. A few years ago, the decision was taken to play with the 40mm ball to make the game slower and in turn to reduce the set to 11. Since then Chinese, Japanese, Korean and the rest of the world play with 40mm and stop at 11. After a short transition time, there is no discussion at all about the new rules. Tennis, soccer, chess is played all over the world in the same way. Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? Is there not something like a FIDE or a FIFA ? Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:37 +0200, chrilly wrote: I am playing competitive tennis-table. There were for years a heated debatte if the ball-diamater should be increased from 38 to 40mm and if the set shall go to 11 instead of to 21. A few years ago, the decision was taken to play with the 40mm ball to make the game slower and in turn to reduce the set to 11. Since then Chinese, Japanese, Korean and the rest of the world play with 40mm and stop at 11. After a short transition time, there is no discussion at all about the new rules. Tennis, soccer, chess is played all over the world in the same way. Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? Is there not something like a FIDE or a FIFA ? I'm curious about this myself. I don't know if there is a world-wide go organization. I don't think there is any organization that has the clout to standardize this in a way that would be respected and globally adopted. - Don Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). Another nice bonus to territory scoring is that avoiding point loss in end game forces me to have confidence in the stability of a position as the outer dame are filled. A little bit like gambling 30 points to save one. Besides that stuff, I really play the game the same way for either rule set. It's only once I reach the bitter end of the endgame that I might play differently. Mostly, I'd fill dame instead of passing. I'd also be more ok with putting an extra stone to protect an internal group weakness that I think probably won't be a problem. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Robert Jasiek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason House wrote: I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). This is for most part an illusion. In real world games, the dame are filled anyway. In go server games, it depends on the server whether filling is meaningful. E.g., on KGS it is essential because KGS makes scoring mistakes otherwise. E.g., on IGS it is undefined whether it would be meaningful or not. IMHO, KGS does a fine job with unfilled dame. It only finds lost points that would be because dame filling causes a chain to be in atari. Honestly, a more complex attack could be missed by the opponent and it seems reasonable for KGS to miss it too. Occasionally, I'll fill dame to force the opponent to acknowledge a more involved vulnerability and fill it. I checked my recent personal game record to see how this applies in the real world. For this month, I had 5 relevant games (vs. human, no resignation). On average, 4 dame remain unfilled in one of my games. It seems like most games that number of unfilled dame are low (0,3,4,4), but occasionally there can be a lot (10). 4 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/10/Touch-jhouse.sgf 0 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/9/teee-jhouse.sgf 10 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/3/bearkid-jhouse.sgf 4 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/3/jhouse-GoTooom.sgf 3 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/3/bitchesbru-jhouse.sgf -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jason House wrote: KGS does a fine job with unfilled dame. Any server that violates the rules during scoring does not do a fine job. KGS violates whichever Japanese rules. -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On 7/12/07, chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? Kyu players, using full boards, aren't really affected. Kyu players can't count a full board with perfect accuracy, so they just play out the yose and then count to find what the result was. Kyu players on 9x9 boards can be affected. I recently lost a 9x9 game by half a point, playing a line that would have guaranteed a half-point victory except that I was mistaken about the ruleset. Strong players are certainly affected. At a London Open Go Tournament a few years ago, a Chinese 5-dan was disappointed to lose by half a point a game which she would have won using Chinese rules. I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). The Japanese rules in fact require the players to fill the dame. Though very few people take any notice ... Nick Another nice bonus to territory scoring is that avoiding point loss in end game forces me to have confidence in the stability of a position as the outer dame are filled. A little bit like gambling 30 points to save one. Besides that stuff, I really play the game the same way for either rule set. It's only once I reach the bitter end of the endgame that I might play differently. Mostly, I'd fill dame instead of passing. I'd also be more ok with putting an extra stone to protect an internal group weakness that I think probably won't be a problem. -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jesus, there are not just Japanese, Chinese rules, there are ING, AGA... I learned today, that suicide is allowed under some rules... I thought, Go is a well defined game with a very clear mathematical rule set. There are discussions in other sports too (e.g. in Table-Tennis), but nevertheless there is usually a reasonable compromise, everybody can live with. There is at the end some pragmatism. This pragmatism is also quite missing in chess and it seems to be absent in Go. The explanation I have for chess is: Chess players have a board infront of their head. The difference to Go seems to be: The Go-Board is even larger. Chrilly I think the - Original Message - From: Robert Jasiek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets? chrilly wrote: Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? As somebody having taken part in the International Go Rules Forum, which has been meant to unify the rules, I can tell you the reasons: The major split has - not surprisingly - occurred again between the Area Scoring (China, Ing, AGA, supported by the EGF delegates) and the Traditional Territory Scoring (Japan, Korean, supported by some IGF delegates) factions. The reasons are: - The territorialists (or their influential majority) don't want to compromise. They reject even compromises that are very close to their current rulesets. They want to keep at least 99.9% of their tradition. - The territorialists play on time for the purpose of leaving things as they are. - The majority of the Chinese (except Mr. Hua) has been too silent during the discussion because they have not educated themselves well about the theoretical background of rules discussion. - The Ing delegates played too much on aiming at Ing-specific aspects instead of going for compromise earlier and could bear too little factual criticism. After the territorialists had gone, the arealists solved every secondary issue quickly, all expressed a good will and time schedule for solving the major issues, and then (so far) have stopped further unifying at least the Area Scoring rules: - The Chinese and Ing delegates have been almost completely silent since the last meeting. - The AGA delegates slowed down discussion for some months. - The AGA delegates and every European delegate or expert (except myself) insisted on discussing and aiming at superko again while during the last meeting it had become pretty clear that the Chinese and Ing delegates would not accept superko at all. If you need to criticise also me, you might argue that I did most of the factual discussion instead of being simply silent and letting the Asians do whatever they might have liked (although IMO it did not seem that they would have advanced any sooner then and it would have meant for sure that the rules would have got significantly more flaws). Summarizing, the overall intention to compromise or at least to accelerate factual discussion is still by far too small. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On 7/12/07, chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? Kyu players, using full boards, aren't really affected. Kyu players can't count a full board with perfect accuracy, so they just play out the yose and then count to find what the result was. Kyu players on 9x9 boards can be affected. I recently lost a 9x9 game by half a point, playing a line that would have guaranteed a half-point victory except that I was mistaken about the ruleset. I've seen analysis of perfect 7x7 play that shows how some moves are ideal under one ruleset rather than another. I'm a kyu player (3k) and I know that I never even consider the ruleset and how counting would be different. My yose plays don't take scoring differences into account. What rank are you? Do you have a link to the game? Strong players are certainly affected. At a London Open Go Tournament a few years ago, a Chinese 5-dan was disappointed to lose by half a point a game which she would have won using Chinese rules. The key question is really if the game would have been played differently knowing the ruleset. I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). The Japanese rules in fact require the players to fill the dame. Though very few people take any notice ... Nick Another nice bonus to territory scoring is that avoiding point loss in end game forces me to have confidence in the stability of a position as the outer dame are filled. A little bit like gambling 30 points to save one. Besides that stuff, I really play the game the same way for either rule set. It's only once I reach the bitter end of the endgame that I might play differently. Mostly, I'd fill dame instead of passing. I'd also be more ok with putting an extra stone to protect an internal group weakness that I think probably won't be a problem. -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jason House wrote: I mean that the resulting marking of who's territories is who's matches what I would have done if I stopped at that point and scored the game. Occasionally, KGS fails here. See rec.games.go or elsewhere for details. I don't see a way that the game would have come out to any other result if the extra 10 moves were played. Of course. If you don't look carefully each time, you overlook KGS's failures. -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:58 -0400, Jason House wrote: I run some really dumb bots online that play perfectly fine blitz games (10s/move) with Chinese rules and it still drives humans insane because the computer doesn't stop playing. People resign won games in endgame because they can't take it. There is some value in reducing the number of moves in a game. Yes, on KGS you can stop the game and send a list of dead stones. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Robert Jasiek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason House wrote: I mean that the resulting marking of who's territories is who's matches what I would have done if I stopped at that point and scored the game. Occasionally, KGS fails here. See rec.games.go or elsewhere for details. Honestly, I'm not interested enough to go searching. I've played lots and lots of games and feel comfortable from my experience that it works fine. I don't see a way that the game would have come out to any other result if the extra 10 moves were played. Of course. If you don't look carefully each time, you overlook KGS's failures. ... Both players can review the outcome before accepting it. If they don't agree, they undo and play enough to correct the problem... If both players miss it because it's a more complex vulnerability, then they miss it and the score corresponds to their expectations. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
The biggest difference in over the board club play is the scoring procedure. in territory scoring, prisoners are kept separate, and at the end of the game prisoners are put back in enemy territory and regions are rearranged to rectangles and counter. Counting is pretty fast, and the board position is partially preserved. In Chinese scoring, prisoners are put back in the bowls with stones to be played, and at the end of the game one color only is counted, first territory, then the stones are collected into piles of 10 and counted. The position is completely destroyed in the process. So though Chinese rules avoid the special cases in Japanese rules, counting mistakes are easier to make. In AGA rules, counting is done using the territory procedure, but the score is the same as the Chinese procedure since anyone who passes gives a prisoner to the opponent. In Ing rules, each player starts with 180 stones exactly. During play prisoners are put back in the bowls, then at the end all 181 stones are put on the board into the territory. The person with territory left over wins. So there is not much difference in the moves chosen, but the scoring procedure is radically different. If the players don't agree on the rules and one saves prisoner and the other doesn't it will be difficult to count the score. I think this group has a tendency to think mostly about computer scoring, and not how games are scored on a wooden go board in a club :) David I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jason House wrote: If both players miss it because it's a more complex vulnerability, then they miss it and the score corresponds to their expectations. Players miss it mostly when being too lazy to make a positional judgement shortly before the end and to verify whether KGS marks the right intersections as territory. -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
IIRC, in KGS, the players themselves mark the dead groups, and if they disagree I suppose there is a conflict-resolution procedure. ( haven't come across that in actual play ) When I started on KGS, I was unaware that it was the players' responsibility to mark dead groups - my opponent was marking the groups, but I didn't know this. Once dead groups are marked, KGS then appears to be able to determine what is territory and what is dame. I'd have to check some sample games to say whether it can determine that a space should be filled in to prevent a capture when the dame are filled - can't speak to that. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster - Original Message From: Robert Jasiek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:17:07 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets? David Fotland wrote: I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? Different scoring requires my strategy to be adapted. Different counting leads to different kinds of defensive methods against accidental or cheating errors. I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... So how do you ensure that in real games? Do you not use Japanese fill-in counting because for that you would need to make the game longer again by filling the dame? I don't have to go filling dame You don't have to (I guess you use some verbal Japanese rules), but how do you count? -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The key question is really if the game would have been played differently knowing the ruleset. Yes. In both games, a player who was mistaken about the ruleset chose a calm solid defensive line which would have given them a half-point victory using what they thought was the ruleset. They could have chosen a less clear line, whose outcome would likely have been different by a point or two, one way or the other. I am 2-kyu by the European system, 3-kyu on KGS. It is possible that my experiences refereeing KGS 9x9 tournaments have caused my skill at counting almost-finished 9x9 games to be above average for someone of my strength :-) Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
I didn't write this :) I'm pretty familiar with the differences in rule sets. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:17 PM To: computer-go Subject: Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets? David Fotland wrote: I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? Different scoring requires my strategy to be adapted. Different counting leads to different kinds of defensive methods against accidental or cheating errors. I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... So how do you ensure that in real games? Do you not use Japanese fill-in counting because for that you would need to make the game longer again by filling the dame? I don't have to go filling dame You don't have to (I guess you use some verbal Japanese rules), but how do you count? -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
