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

Re: [computer-go] Super Ko on KGS ignores player to move

In message <791205C3-00C1-4DB2-93A6-A891B4661195@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, john tromp <John.Tromp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
The Chinese rules are quite clear but suffer from the freedom
that they provide referees in deviating from the rules.

Interesting. So you are saying that sites such as
http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html have it wrong? Or that the
They have it wrong in that they describe something the referee may do,
rather then what the rules prescribe.
(I wrote http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html. The page may have been changed since I ceased to be responsible for it; but it has not been changed regarding this issue.)

As it says on that page,
>Under Chinese rules, I am told by a Chinese Professional player that a
>repeated position is treated as a drawn game, with the victory being
>According to the Chinese rules as presented in "The Go Player's
>Almanac" (Ishi Press 1991), such repetition is "forbidden", and when it
>happens, "the referee may declare a draw or a replay". This does not
>make sense to me. Unfortunately I cannot read Chinese and check the
>original. The intention may be to forbid repetition whose only
>intention is to prevent the game from ending (such repetition can only
>work under area-scoring), while handling repetitions such as triple-ko
>as a draw or as a void game.

The Chinese professional is Wang, Hongjuan, now 7p. He sent me a joseki sequence that causes a cho-sei, used in events where the players have agreed that a "draw" is in their mutual interest.

examples in Chapter 3, Section 20 at
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Chinese.html have been removed
from the official rules? Could you point us to a more authoritative
and up-to-date source?
This is apparently all we have to go in in the English language.
Btw, Section 3 is titled "Rules for the Referee". In the absence
of a referee, it would seem sensible to just follow the General Rules
of chapter 1.
IMO chapter 1 one section 6 alone is described too informal to draw
any strong conclusions without taking the full text, including
examples and commentaries into account. (For example, it is not even
Section 6 reads:
Reappearance of the same board position is forbidden throughout the game.

It takes a stretch of imagination to consider this unclear.
However it is clearly contradicted by a later statement.

Nick Wedd    nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
computer-go mailing list