Re: computer-go: Evaluating positions

["Vlad Dumitrescu" <vladdu@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> That is of course a matter of definition. Is the the concept of life and
> death "real" in go? It is not explicitly mentioned in the rules, and one can
> imagine games where it will never need to be considered, but still I feel it
> has some "real" value in go. And how about a triple ko rule (or super-ko)?
> It may be explicitly mentioned in the rules (depending which rules you play
> by), but there can be so many games that don't even get near such a
> situation. Is this a "real" concept of the game or what?  (btw, what *is*
> the opposite of a "real" concept? fake? artificial? )

Rules of the game are another tricky issue, I think. In the rules used in practice, there are some artificial issues, that don't not really belong to the game in the mathematical sense, but to the game as a cultural and historical entity. Counting territory, amount of komi, the 0.5 points that eliminate draw as a possible result - there are several ways that the issues could be settled and possibly change the best playing strategy.

I like to separate the mathematical game of Go from the one played in the real world. For example the outcome of the game can be a win for either part or a draw. Conventional rules will introduce (or eliminate, depending on how one looks at it) a bias. Should the "perfect game" be in fact a draw, the 0.5 points convention will make one side to always win. And so on.

/Vlad