Re: computer-go: Engineering (was: Most simple Go rules)

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxx>]

Mark Boon wrote:
> It seems we disagree on a large number of points. That number would be
> greatly reduced however if you'd read what I write a bit more carefully

To be sure, now I have reread your earlier article. My questions
remain the same.

> > > We all know that the
> > > Japanese rules have theoretical problems, but they are very practical
> > Could you please explain this? [...]
> Hahahaha! Sorry, I shouldn't be laughing at you but couldn't help myself
> here.

I am not worried about your humour but I would like to see
your arguments.

> > > Whatever people may think about
> > > the Ing rules, at least they are an honorable attempt to make
> > > the process of
> > > ending the game and counting as simple as possible.
> > "honourable attempt" is justified, even though the result has
> > been a failure.
> Your point being?

His attempts were honourable because he aimed at simplicity,
logic, and usefulness for children.

The result (the Ing 1991 rules) have been a failure because
their ko rules are neither simple nor logical and the
counting method is not as simple as possible for the purpose
of making it simple for children, since stone counting for
area scoring is simpler by not even requiring a constant 
number of stones throughout the game.

> > > - The Tromp/Taylor rules will have similar counting problems as
> > > the Chinese ones.
[...]
> You'd have not much choice but to have a messy and destructive counting
> method as in Chinese rules.

You have a choice between, e.g., point by point counting for 
area scoring or point by point half counting for area scoring.
Neither destroys the position. Neither is messy.

[about preferring Japanese rules or not]
> Obviously you have not. But most people that I know did.

>From none of them have I ever heard any reasons more convincing
than "I like them because I have always been using them!" or
"I like them because I adore their exceptions!". You know that
I have made great efforts of being told more reasons.

--
robert jasiek