RE: [computer-go] Is seki problem solved ?

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think your example is in the same class. It loses a point and
requires a ko to make up for it.

Other examples on the page you mention are better.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nick Wedd
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 14:07
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Is seki problem solved ?
>
>
> In message <DIELJMJIOOKDJHHGCFAHMENICFAA.tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Boon
> <tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >|OOOOXXXXX
> >|XXXXOOOOX
> >|OOXbOXXOX
> >|OaX.OX.OX
> >----------
> >
> >O can win by playing suicide at 'a'. X can prevent it by playing
> at 'b', but
> >there exists a more complicated example based on the principle
> above where X
> >can't prevent it even.
> >
> >This was found by Guus Rol a long time ago in his quest 'Is
> there life after
> >death?' and published in the Dutch Go journal, but I can't remember the
> >exact position.
>
> There's a bunch of examples where suicide is a good move at
> http://www.goban.demon.co.uk/go/bestiary/rule_challenge.html
>
> These do not include the obvious
>
>
>   O . O # O . .    Upper left corner of board
>   # # # # O . .    O, to play, needs a ko threat
>   . . . . O . .
>   O O O O O . .
>   . . . . . . .
>
> Nick
> --
> Nick Wedd    nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> 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/