Re: [computer-go] citation

[Harry Wang <foreversoldier@xxxxxxxxx>]

> I think that John's definition is correct (not as
> overly general as you 
> suggest), 

well, I bet there are many ways to illustrate why
John's definition is wrong. Let me me just start with
a simple example:


> 
> $$  -----------------------------------------
> $$  | . . . . . X X X . . . . . . . . . . . |
> $$  | . . . . . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
> $$  | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |


Now see my point on this issue? 

What I really want to say is, before you guys accept
an definition, question it, and then question it
harder. 


>Not really: we are still waiting for a "correct" or
>at least better 
>definition of "ladder". 

Maybe it's just me, I think at least the Chinese,
Japanese or Koreans have much much better Go
definitions defined over thousands of years ago. I
know for sure there are many thousands of ancient
literature on Go. When we already have a large sum of
treasure, why reinvent the wheel? 

good day.

-harry

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/