RE: [computer-go] citation

["Nicholas D. Krempel" <ndk24@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think this issue has been argued out enough!

It's clear that John's original definition doesn't precisely conform with 
the Go player's use of the term "ladder" - for example, running cuts, or an 
atari leading to a snapback, would both be ladders by the definition, but 
not in casual use.

It's also clear that the casual use isn't precisely specified, and John's 
definition is the most useful precise verision of it, at least as far as a 
computers are concerned and/or for simplicity.

Perhaps you feel the statement about ladders being "hard" is misleading 
then - well not really, as (as someone has already said) the only ladders 
used by that paper are the sort that everyone would call a ladder (+ladder 
benders, etc, which I believe everyone groups with ladders in normal use 
anyway).

It's also possible you feel that a 'ladder' which doesn’t conform to the 
standard pattern of "play on one side, play on the other, play on one side, 
play on the other, ..." isn't a ladder, but based on the Go literature I've 
read, a 'ladder' making use of stones already present (and therefore having 
a different appearance) is still called a ladder.

Then there's the more complicated topic of nets and loose ladders...

Nick Krempel

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