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

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

In message <DIELJMJIOOKDJHHGCFAHMENKCFAA.tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Boon <tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
I don't think your example is in the same class. It loses a point and
requires a ko to make up for it.
It doesn't lose a point, because Black answers it. But I agree that the other examples are more interesting.

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/