Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The issue shouldn't be who remembers what, it should be the right
to claim it.  If my opponent plays a move in violation of ko and
neither of us realizes it, then what is the problem?

But if I don't accept it because I know it's a repeat, then all I have
to do is prove it.  There is always the  case that you might not agree
with  any ko rule,  even the simplest but the   game record will be my
proof.

What is the actual protocol for these kind of claims?

Don




   Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 23:21:39 -0700
   From: David Fotland <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   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