This case is simple. You needn't capture and remove the dead stone
actually before the game ends. If you think it's alive, you have the right
to resume to game after double pass to make it alive (e.g. make two
eyes).
But I have to say, there are two many arbitrary judging rules in Japanese
rule
Dave Dyer wrote:
The Japanese rules
are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the
last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct
score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation.
I shall assume that with meaningless you do not mean dame because,
under Japanese
I would also like to add the following:
The real answer to this question about how to end a game with japanese
rules is that it over a longer course of time it is solved through
social interaction. If someone refuses to score games correctly you
simply never play a game with that person
Strongly agreed on its is a social game not a mathematical
abstraction. As well-known, there have been several contentious very
important matches which may even change the direction of Japanese Go
history.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I would also
Strongly agreed on its is a social game not a mathematical abstraction. As
well-known, there have been several contentious very important matches which
may even change the direction of Japanese Go history.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I would also like
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter
Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different
answers, so I thought I'd check here.
Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your
territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Li Li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
This case is simple. You needn't capture and remove the dead stone
actually before the game ends. If you think it's alive, you have the
right to resume to game after double pass to make it alive (e.g.
make two eyes).
But I have to
I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different answers,
so I thought I'd check here.
to get a different set of different answers. :)
Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your
territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed it (playing four
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the
best rulesets for humans.
Ok, tired old topic, tired old response: Japanese rules aren't good for
beginners. They also aren't good at resolving disputes (genuine
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
Dave Dyer wrote:
Japanese: bad.
I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules
are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the
last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct
score with a
Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces of Go, the winners of the two
divisions of Sunday's KGS bot tournament.
My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/42/index.html
I am sure it has as many errors as usual, and I look forward to
receiving your corrections.
I would also
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 07:57 -0400, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the
best rulesets for humans.
Ok, tired old topic, tired old response: Japanese rules aren't good for
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 14:21 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
I would also appreciate views on my proposal to change the time system
used for these events, so that instead of say 18 minutes absolute time,
they will use 18 minutes plus 20 stones/20 seconds Canadian overtime.
What happens if you get
It's a shame Fischer Timing is not available. A small Fischer
increment of 1 or 2 seconds would do the job nicely.
- Don
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 14:21 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces of Go, the winners of the two
divisions of Sunday's KGS bot tournament.
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
It's a shame Fischer Timing is not available. A small Fischer
increment of 1 or 2 seconds would do the job nicely.
It doesn't solve the problem of two programs that don't pass. You can't
keep to a fixed schedule if you keep on allowing
Hi Nick,
Thank you for origanizing the tounaments.
However, the hardware I (FudoBot) used is wrong. It was running on a
loosely coupled cluster of four PCs connected through a usual Gigabit
Ethernet LAN. Each PC has one Intel Core2Quad processor running at
3GHz. So, 16 cores in total.
HBotSVN's processor details are empty, and there seems to be confusion about
the end of the round 6 game. I hope the additional detail below is helpful.
Processor:
- One core of an Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5450 @ 1.66GHz
Open Division, Round 6:
- I noticed that KGS was
Disputes that beginners get into are another class of disputes that
these rules cannot easily resolve without the beginner feeling as if
they were being handled.You pretty much have to rely on his good
nature to eventually just accept the result without questioning it. At
some point you
Some comments:
First, I've seen tournament games between beginners where both agreed on the
death of a group because it was bent 4 in the corner when in fact the
shape was not bent-4 and the group was alive. It's very hard for observers
not so say something when the game is scored incorrectly.
On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:18 PM, David Fotland wrote:
If you fail to make it live, then we now agree on the status of the
group,
and we restore the position to what it was when we both passed, and
score
it.
Ah, this is the key point I was failing to grasp. I didn't realize
that the moves
I agree -- the AGA rules are quite clear. Note that the British Go
Association has recently adopted the same rules.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:12 AM, David Fotland wrote:
Finally, a plug for American rules: American rules are the same as
chinese
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
In chess, there is some logic that all games end (at least in
principle)
with with repetition, stalemate, or checkmate. The 50 move rule is a
practical substitute for the repetition rule based on the assumption
that these games would end
without vast captures of territory, someone
will either violate the superko rule or make an
illegal move before lots of time passes.
s.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Jeff Nowakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
It's a shame Fischer Timing is
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter
Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:18 PM, David Fotland wrote:
If you fail to make it live, then we now agree on the status of the
group,
and we restore the position to what it was when we both passed, and
score
it.
Ah, this is the key
The formalized rules are the tortured details I referred to. I've
played thousands of games of Go, and I've never even seen any of those
versions of the rules.
The Japanese rules I refer to are the informal procedures I use every
time I play, both to estimate the score during the game, and at
David Fotland wrote:
Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is preserved
Japanese counting destroys the position by
- removal of dead stones
- filling in of (most) prisoners
- rearrangements of stones
- rearrangements of borders
- border stone colour changes
After the
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:29 -0400, steve uurtamo wrote:
without vast captures of territory, someone
will either violate the superko rule or make an
illegal move before lots of time passes.
It depends on how the bots play. What if you get two bots that each
insist on playing in the opponent's
I was speaking of how people count, not computers. Chinese players count by
taking all the stones off the board and putting them in piles of ten.
I've done (and seen) point by point counting on a real board, and it is
really hard to get a correct result. You have to count at least twice to
You also cannot score Japanese from just the board position unless you
have a prisoner count of both sides. This state has to be carried
either explicitly (by a bowl full of stones) or implicitly by a complete
game record.
So I suppose it's possible to have what appears to be 2 identical
Knowing who is winning requires calculating the value of each endgame
position and understanding the best order to play into them. Professional
players can do this 100 moves from the end of the game and typically be
within a point or 2 of the final score.
I'm AGA 3 Dan, and I'm happy if I can
I bet with practice and using Chinese scoring, you could very rapidly
calculate the score without touching the board.
In fact, if I were trying to become a dan level players I would think
that in Chinese I would want to be able to quickly sum the board like
this. In real close games I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
You also cannot score Japanese from just the board position unless you
have a prisoner count of both sides. This state has to be carried
either explicitly (by a bowl full of stones) or implicitly by a complete
game record.
So I
David Fotland wrote:
Professional
players can do this 100 moves from the end of the game and typically be
within a point or 2 of the final score.
Nice myth, but I doubt it. Rather very strongly it depends on the kind
of position. In some kinds of early middle game positions (150 to 200
Nick Wedd wrote:
If there are too many to
be counted as they lie in the lid, I would take this to mean that the
opponent is entitled to tip them out and count them.
In EGF / German tournaments (with open prisoners prescribed), I do it
when necessary for my updated positional judgement. I do
It seems to be more efficient for humans to count territory instead of area
during the game.
I've heard that even chinese professionals save time by estimating the score
during the game by counting territory japanese style and correcting for stones
captured (you have to remember captures, which
In European tournaments, I have been told, when a group is claimed by
one player to be a seki, and by the other player to be dead, the
player who claims it is dead will receive one stone, as a prisoner,
from his stubborn opponent foreach stone he plays in his own would-be-
territory.
If
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Basti
Weidemyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In European tournaments, I have been told, when a group is claimed by
one player to be a seki, and by the other player to be dead, the player
who claims it is dead will receive one stone, as a prisoner, from his
stubborn
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 00:00 +0200, Basti Weidemyr wrote:
If dame was filled, I see no reason why this would not be possible to
implement as a cleanup phase on go-servers, like the one used for new
zealand and chinese rules. Do you? It would be the human-adaption of
the
Don Dailey wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
Dave Dyer wrote:
Japanese: bad.
I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules
are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the
last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct
score
Good players don't grab at everything. That's a losing strategy. Once one
player is ahead, the player ahead plays safely to secure a high confidence
win, and the player behind creates complications to try for an upset. The
proverb says when you are ahead, don't pick fights.
David
But I am
40 matches
Mail list logo
