[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [computer-go] citation


On Jul 14, 2004, at 20:27, Evan Daniel wrote:

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.


Then you're awfully clueless.

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.

There is a very simple reason why casual 'ladders' (or stairs ;) have been called the way they have. So spare us your useful definition crap will you?

Regardless, they all behave in a fairly similar fashion from the
computer reading perspective.

No, Some are failry obvious, while others involve a lot of reading. Some may push the one trapped in to capture some stones; there is no 'ladder breaker' in that case but you can still break out. Some may leave no vulnerabilities, like the example above (and unlike normal ladders), so you don't really need to determine whether it will succeed or fail -- it's more like just forcing moves while taking a profit. And so on. They are definitely not all the same, especially from a computational perspective.

So, why try to throw out some of the
group just because it doesn't meet your preconceived sensibilities?

My same words to you.

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.

Overbroad definitions are irrelevant too. Just as those overriding an already overwhelmingly accepted definitions and those being ambiguous or misleading.

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.


The very fact that using it started this discussion tells a lot about why it shouldn't be used, at least as is ; I don't think anybody would have frowned if he had introduced the concept as "generalized ladders" at the very least.

--Martin

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


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