Re: [computer-go] Protocol B

[Mark Boon <tesujisoftware@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/29/05, Erik van der Werf <erikvanderwerf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/29/05, john tromp <John.Tromp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I' aware of that. I showed this position (also in my thesis) because
> it is an extreme consequence of my rules.
> 
> The question is, if I can prove that I can capture some group, do I
> then have to continue play after that capture (which I'm not willing
> to do), or am I allowed to go back to the position at the start of the
> resolution phase and score the position exactly there where both
> programs decided to pass first.
> 
> I don't think there is an easy answer and my rules are certainly not
> perfect. However until someone comes up with a more accurate
> programmable and practical approximation of the Chinese rules I stick
> with Migos rules.
> 

I think the proof of the cake is in the eating. Meaning, the proof of
capturing a group is in taking it off the board.

For any group I doubt a method exists of providing proof it can be
captured other than actually going ahead and do it. It may seem that
groups with one liberty are an obvious refutation of that claim, after
all they obviously can be captured. There are known situations however
where removing stones in atari off of the board is disadvantageous.
Erik's example is only one of them, there are other situations which
more closely resemble seki.

I don't expect anyone seriously contending this claim for groups of
more than one liberty.

Maybe it's a matter of point of view, but I'd say in Erik's example
the # stones are alive if it's not in O's interest to actually remove
them.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/