Re: [computer-go] citation

[Evan Daniel <evanbd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Harry Wang
<foreversoldier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

No, I don't.

As far as I'm concerned, any definition applicable to computer go
needs to be evaluated based on how useful it is.  From a computer go
perspective, there exists a set of problems that John's definition
neatly describes.  It happens to primarily consist of things that look
like ladders, or stairs, or snakes, or whatever you want to call it. 
Regardless, they all behave in a fairly similar fashion from the
computer reading perspective.  So, why try to throw out some of the
group just because it doesn't meet your preconceived sensibilities? 
That arbitrarily adds to the complexity of the definition, reduces its
relevance to the real world of computer go programming, and adds
nothing to justify itself.

So, what exactly is wrong with using John's definition, and applying
the term "ladder" to it?  That seems the most natural thing to call
it, and also the most useful definition to attach to the term.

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