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

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   From: Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   In message <3B408524.FD9C5343@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christian Nentwich
   <c.nentwich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

   >That's the whole point. This protocol defines the semantics of dead. If
   >black can't demonstrate life, the stones are dead, no scope for arguing.

   You have this the wrong way round.  You can demonstrate that something
   is dead by killing it.  You can only demonstrate life by the absence of
   a demonstration of deadness.

   Nick
   -- 
   Nick Wedd


You both have  it wrong.  The protocol  is an  agreement phase, not  a
proof phase.  You can't demonstrate that something  is dead by killing
it, you might  only be proving  that the  opponent was not  capable of
defending it in one instance.

So instead of asserting that a group is dead, you are REALLY asserting
that side who owns those stones are incapable of defending them.  This
could be because they are truly dead and the attacker has the required
techniqe   to   kill  them,  or  could  be  because   the  defender is
incompetent.

But   this doesn't really  matter, as  long  as  you  have a method to
negotiate your assertions and come to a final agreement on the score.

Don