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

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nick Wedd
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:17 PM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: computer-go: Engineering (was: Most simple Go rules)
>
>
> In message <000001c1015a$f7369b40$093ba8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Boon
> <tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>
> >As far as I'm concerned, Go is a game where the first player who
> can't place
> >a stone on the board anymore loses. Added of course the usual rules about
> >capture and repetition. Most of the existing rule-sets are
> trying to end the
> >game more quickly by introducing the concept of territory and counting it
> >instead of playing it out. Somewhere in history this concept of territory
> >has become so dominant that it was 'forgotten' that each group actually
> >needs two eyes and that two points should be subtracted for each group on
> >the board. Everyone accepted this "bending" of the original
> rules pure and
> >simply because they prefered to have a quicker way of ending the game.
>
> The game where the first player who can't place a stone loses, and the
> game with the two-stone group tax, are different.
>
>              . . O X .        Five-by-five board
>              . . O X .        No prisoners
>              O O O X X        X to play
>              . O X X .
>              O O X . X
>
> With a two-stone group tax, O wins.  With first-who-can't-play loses, X
> wins.
>

Interesting. I always thought it would be equivalent. Apparently I was
mistaken.