Nick Wedd wrote:
In one of the British Championship Match games, a bit over ten years
ago, Zhang Shutai made an illegal ko move against Matthew Macfadyen, and
immediately conceded that he had lost the game.
Is the game record available? I am interested because I have only found 2
situations
On Dec 13, 2007 12:17 PM, Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Wedd wrote:
In one of the British Championship Match games, a bit over ten years
ago, Zhang Shutai made an illegal ko move against Matthew Macfadyen, and
immediately conceded that he had lost the game.
Is the game
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew
Woodcraft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Don Dailey wrote:
Ok, let's get into semantics. Is superko an illegal move? Is it
simply forbidden or is it part of the rules that you lose immediately if
you play it? In card games that is called an irregularity
Take this with a grain of salt, since I am a novice, but my understanding
of the distinction is this: violating the ko rule flows from an incorrect
decision made by the player; playing a stone of the wrong color from external
mishap - the stone should not have been in the player's bowl. Usually
On Dec 11, 2007 4:00 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 6:48 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Go however, even if the fundamental game is unchanged you may be
playing illegal moves if you are not aware of the superko situation.
There is some
question about how you define a position (a board state, or a board
configuration i.e. SSK or PSK) but you can nitpick if you want and say
that superko has nothing to do with positions repeating but I think when
a position repeats it's superko.
And when you say it's
On Dec 11, 2007 2:18 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is some
question about how you define a position (a board state, or a board
configuration i.e. SSK or PSK) but you can nitpick if you want and say
that superko has nothing to do with positions repeating but I think when
Nick Wedd wrote:
Sorry, but I can't take this seriously. If your board update routine
fails, just fix it. As long as you trust the controller to send legal
moves, it's well defined how the board will look. The same board
update logic can be used for all rulesets. If you don't agree about
the
to be masters. -- Daniel Webster
- Original Message
From: Gunnar Farnebäck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] A thought about Bot-server communications
Nick Wedd wrote:
Sorry, but I can't take
When I play Go on a Go server, I do not try to remember the board
position. I can always find out what it is by looking at the client
window on my screen.
When a bot plays on a Go server, it does remember the position. This is
something that programs are good at, so it seems reasonable to
As I understand it, gtp is for one way communication. I've heard of this as
an issue when developers try to provide output for the benefit of players
(or bot developer debugging the bot)
There's typically work-arounds that we use to overcome this.
On kgs, to inform the players, the version
Nick Wedd wrote:
When I play Go on a Go server, I do not try to remember the board
position. I can always find out what it is by looking at the client
window on my screen.
When a bot plays on a Go server, it does remember the position. This
is something that programs are good at, so it
I forgot mention why FEN is flawed. It's because it fails to capture
the complete state of the game. It records en-passant information and
color to move, but it's does not capture position history so you
cannot detect draws due to positional repetition.
In GO, this is probably a more
On Dec 10, 2007 10:07 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I forgot mention why FEN is flawed. It's because it fails to capture
the complete state of the game. It records en-passant information and
color to move, but it's does not capture position history so you
cannot detect draws
On Dec 10, 2007 4:35 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In GO, this is probably a more serious problem.
Yes, there is no such thing as an irreversible move in go.
Well there is the opening move... (unless suicide is legal you can
never recreate the empty board).
I think we are
stuck
On Dec 10, 2007 11:05 AM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 4:35 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In GO, this is probably a more serious problem.
Yes, there is no such thing as an irreversible move in go.
Well there is the opening move... (unless suicide
Of course if only simple KO is used, then repetition is not an issue -
you only have to store the simple ko state fen style.
But none of this is any good for a general solution (a simple text based
position notation.)
We could talk about systems for compressing move lists of course but
there
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Álvaro
Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It is not my intention to sound confrontational. I really don't know
how other rule sets deal with tricky situations.
For long-cycle repetitions:
Japanese: A repetition lead to no result. The game is replayed.
On Dec 10, 2007 11:48 AM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course if only simple KO is used, then repetition is not an issue -
you only have to store the simple ko state fen style.
But none of this is any good for a general solution (a simple text based
position notation.)
We could
Nick Wedd wrote:
Chinese: A player may not repeat a previous board position and
when he does the game counts as half a win to each
player.
According to influentual Chinese professionals, the superko rule is a
fake overridden by the referee ko rules section.
On Dec 10, 2007 11:56 AM, Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Álvaro
Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It is not my intention to sound confrontational. I really don't know
how other rule sets deal with tricky situations.
For long-cycle repetitions:
Japanese:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Jasiek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
Nick Wedd wrote:
Chinese: A player may not repeat a previous board position and
when he does the game counts as half a win to each
player.
According to influentual Chinese professionals,
On Dec 10, 2007 5:23 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 11:05 AM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or simply don't use superko. Normal rules work fine with only some
minimal knowledge of the last move. Long cycles are not an issue
because they may repeat multiple
On Dec 10, 2007 6:07 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like even under non-superko rules, something special happens if a
position is repeated, which means that a program should know the entire
history of the game, or it may accidentally repeat a previous position, even
if it
Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 6:07 PM, Álvaro Begué [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like even under non-superko rules, something special happens if a
position is repeated, which means that a program should know the entire
history of the game, or it may accidentally repeat a
Nick Wedd wrote:
When I play Go on a Go server, I do not try to remember the board
position. I can always find out what it is by looking at the client
window on my screen.
When a bot plays on a Go server, it does remember the position. This is
something that programs are good at, so it
Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 6:48 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Go however, even if the fundamental game is unchanged you may be
playing illegal moves if you are not aware of the superko situation.
And you think superko is part of the fundamental game???
27 matches
Mail list logo
