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 Robert Jasiek
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 3:01 PM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: computer-go: Engineering (was: Most simple Go rules)
>
>
> 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.
>

I admit that I'm not totally familiar with the practical mechanics of some
of the rule-sets and that I'm assuming that if the rules involve counting
both stones and territory that they will lead to a similar amount of work as
with the Chinese rules. The Ing rules are a clearly an exception since it
establishes a mechanical process that counts stones and territory with much
less work, but I'm not aware of any such process for any other rule-set. The
Ing rules only manage this by forcing each player to have exactly 180
stones.

> > Moreover, using an automated arbiter, step 3 above is often not
> necessary.
>
> If you, eh, your program trusts such an automated arbiter.
>

Sigh. One last time. If either player doesn't agree with the arbiter you
continue the game and ignore it. The arbiter just gives the players the
opportunity to end the game more quickly. There's no need to trust it, it's
just there for convenience.
If you still don't understand this then I give up.

> > 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.
>

This was conveyed to me by the secretary of the Ing foundation, Mr. Yang,
when I enquired after the motivation of inventing such new rule. Whether
this was actually Mr. Ing's own opinion I don't know for sure since I don't
speak Chinese.

> > 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.
>

I disagree here. By your standards, Go is inherently unfair until we know
for sure what the komi is supposed to be. And then you may wonder if the
komi should be different for weak players and strong players. You are
confusing fairness with having an advantage.

Rules are fair by default if both players agree to play by them. Using
handicap gives one player a clear advantage. Still it happens a lot that two
players agree to use handicap and I doubt anyone can argue this to make the
rules unfair.