At 04:07 AM 27/06/01, David Fotland wrote:
I think that Chinese counting might take you longer than Japanese because you have practice at one and not the other. Chinese people say the reverse. To me they seem to take about the same time and BOTH destroy the position. Anyway this is not a problem with computers.> But regular Chinese > scoring has the problem that it takes longer to count than Japanese, and > counting destroys > the position. When you speak of taking time or destroying positions, then you mean counting procedures but not scoring definitions.I think I said "Counting takes longer", not scoring takes longer, above :)
Even if you choose Chinese scoring, the game usually ends with two passes with dead stones still on the boardIt is the choice of Chinese scoring that solves the problem since once this choice is made removing dead stones is a strategic consequence.
in human-human games.
I can't understand why you need to prevent other people from playing suicide moves to sell your program. I find it very frustrating to be restricted unnecessarily. It is enough that your program doesn't play suicide moves to sell your program in Japan. Also with superko. You don't need to stop your opponent from playing it, it is enough that your program recognises it and plays accordingly. Even in Japan this would be desirable. This means that you won't annoy the beginners by playing in infinite loops.Sorry, not political, real. If I start by implementing Japanese rules, I will makeThe issue of suicide or no suicide is so minor that making a big fuss about it is a political attempt to divert from major rules issues.
suicide illegal. I'll do Japanese rules first, since most people play that way. Once
I make suicide illegal, it is a change and an option to allow it. But I agree that it
is a minor issue. The various ko rules are a more difficult issue.