Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[David Fotland <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, actually, I don't worry too much about ko rules, so I can't say that I
have a preference.  I don't think it is really all that important except to 
rule
theorists like Robert.

Have you ever tried to explain the various forms of superko to a player?  I 
think
most players just play simple ko and don't worry about anything more complex :)

David

At 01:35 AM 6/29/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 08:45:46PM -0700, David Fotland wrote:
> >
> > >I agree with Robert that super-ko is NOT too complicated for humans.
> > >(At least in real games) Most decent amateurs can replay their games,
> > >so it cannot be impossible to detect a super-ko violation.
> >
> > I guess we will not agree here :)  I think that a pro playing with 
> superko,
> > could set up a
> > position where it would be very difficult to remember which kos had been
> > taken in what order.
>
> Only if his opponent cooperates in setting up many kos:)
>
> But, this seems not to be an argument against superko, since in ANY
> other korule, you'll have a similar difficulty of recognizing whether
> there is a repetition going on.
>
> You must either allow infinite games (like the basic ko rule does),
> or somehow recognize some form of repetition, and if you opt for the latter,
> then superko is arguably the simplest way.
>
> Note that the Japanese rules have an
>
>   Article 12. No result
>
>   When the same whole-board position is repeated during a game,
>   if the players agree, the game ends without result.
>
> So both players should be able to remember previous positions,
> else they cannot challenge the opponent's claim of no-result.
>
> What do you prefer?
>
> 1) superko forbidding all board repetition, or
>
> 2) basic ko forbidding 2-cycles + no-result for all other board repetition
>
> regards,
> -john
David Fotland