Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxx>]

Tom Cooper wrote:
> There are some people who dislike superko on aesthetic
> grounds.

I accept that as a subjectively convincing argument.

> Worse than this, I don't think it would even be possible (with superko)
> to make an arbiter that wasn't vunerable to malicious players whose
> goal was to try to make it missbehave.

How can a logical program implementing a logical rule be forced
to misbehave?

> Also, I am aware that automatically
> ruling a draw for a repeated position is vunerable to the same objection.

Yes.

> Nevertheless, I think that this is a valid objection to superko even if it is
> not as convincing as some other objections to other rules.

What is your point in making an objection to superko if that
objection can be made to other, used ko rules, too?

--
robert jasiek