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

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxx>]

Mark Boon wrote:
> I admit that I'm not totally familiar with the practical mechanics of some
> of the rule-sets

See http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/int.html for example.

> 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.

I understand your intention but why are you so optimistic that
trusting the arbiter would be the standard?

> 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.

OC, he would bring forward every conceivable reason.

> By your standards, Go is inherently unfair until we know
> for sure what the komi is supposed to be. [...] You are
> confusing fairness with having an advantage.

No, I don't confuse this; my example shouln't be generalized
as if I did.

> Rules are fair by default if both players agree to play by them.

Do you also mean that - as in the standard case - rules are fair
if both players are FORCED to play by them? IMO, it is not the
rules that become fair by such circumstances but only the 
tournament environment becomes fair.

--
robert jasiek