[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: computer-go: Engineering (was: Most simple Go rules)
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