Re: [computer-go] citation

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

Harry,

You made  some good  points and nice  observations that I  agree with.
However I differ with this statement of yours.  I'm not saying this to
pick on you, I just want to keep you honest :-) Here is what you said:

>  My point is that both John's definition and the one
>  on sensei are not precise. They are just casual
>  definitions. 

But  that wasn't your  point at  all, you  said John's  definition was
INCORRECT.  And if you look at the context of your statement, you were
also implying  that John's "generalized" definition made  it too hard,
the  real definition  (which you  never actually  gave) was  much more
specific you said  and that ladders were not  interesting, contrary to
John's  assertion.  You  then pointed  us  to a  web page  that had  a
"casual definition."

If all you wanted was a formal definition, you can start with the only
definition given so far, John Tromp's definition.  He is the only one here who
bothered to actually give a definition and it's a lot closer to a formal
definition the web page we were referred to.

Actually, I am  still interested in knowing what  is wrong with John's
definition, and why it's so general and not correct.  The only thing I
can  think of  is that  he failed  to mention  that it  should  be the
ORIGINAL  white group  that  black put's  into  atari.  That's  pretty
forgivable since he wasn't attempting  a formal defintion and since no
reasonable go player would fail to understand this point.

For reference again, here is what  John said that seems pretty easy to
understand by any reasonble interpretation, if not completely formal:

  Given a position on an arbitrarily-sized Go board,
  and a white group with 2 liberties, can Black keep
  putting white
  in atari---that is, reduce white to 1
  liberty---until capture?
 

- Don

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/