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

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxx>]

Mark Boon wrote:
> No, I think the actual process of counting is longer. To count in Japanese
> rules one uses the prisoners to create easy to count blocks of empty spaces,
> about 60 each. In Chinese rules you do the same,

Objectively, there is no doubt that the traditional counting 
applied together with Chinese rules is longer (measured in 
elementary steps of moving stones or counting points) than the 
traditional counting applied together with Japanese rules. You 
could see this from my list a few days ago. We agree about it.
What I do not understand is that you seem to associate all
area scoring rules with the traditional Chinese counting and
all territory scoring rules with the traditional Japanese
counting.

> Moreover, using an automated arbiter, step 3 above is often not necessary.

If you, eh, your program trusts such an automated arbiter.

> I would say that's a bureacrats way justifying his existence.

:)

> Ing also devised his ko-rule because he thought it to be more "fair".

An interesting theory but I have not been able to find any
evidence for it.

> However, the only fairness in the rules that is required is that the rules
> apply the same to both players and that both players agree to play by those
> rules.

In case of logical rules their meaning is constant and therefore
their application is the same to both players and what the 
players agree to and mean to agree to is also the same.
In case of illogical rules their meaning varies and therefore
their application can differ from player to player and what the
players agree to and mean to agree to can also differ.
Thus fairness can be found in logical rules more easily than in
illogical rules.

> Rules are fair by default, period.

Rules are not fair by default (otherwise this would also apply to
a rule "the first player always wins") but an arbiter is said to
create a fair rules application once they are set up for use 
under his jurisdiction, subject to appeals.

> 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.

Sadly, the age of using such has gone...

--
robert jasiek