[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules
Don Dailey wrote:
> This is just my opinion, but I consider these rules (see below) the
> very simplest rules. I fouund them two or three years ago on the web.
> They are extremely appealing, especially for computers.
No doubt, except that one may question situational superko
instead of positional superko, however, this is the wrong
list for such details:)
> These rules are also ideal for beginners.
Concerning the contents, yes. (Apart from the note before.)
Concerning the language, I doubt this. Alternative wordings
with (almost) the same contents are the International Rules
or the Rules FAQ's rules. IMO, the Tromp-Taylor wording is
good for programmers, the Robinson-Olmstead language is
good for mathematicians, the International Rules' wording is
good for tournament play, and the Rules FAQ wording is good
for beginners.
What really worries me is usage of illogical rules in CG
tournaments while everybody knows about the advantages of
logical rules for programming. Sponsorship is a weak argument
because the AGA gets much attention from Asian professionals
despite their logical rules. Cultural tradition is an even
weaker argument these days when professionals from all big
go playing countries spread go. So why must every tournament
organizer and programmer suffer from implementing more than
one ruleset, one worse than the other?!
--
robert jasiek