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

[Robin Kramer <kodream@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have tried to construct a sequence of moves involving a same board
configuration but different players initiative, and I don't know that
one would ever
exist with two players trying to win, as it involves a ko where two stones are 
captured in the sequence in the corner.

white to move 1,1

w+bwwwwwww
b wwwwwwww
bbbbbbbb
bbbbb

black to move 

+bbwwwwwww   <----captured white
b wwwwwwww
bbbbbbbb
bbbbb

white to move

w++wwwwwww  <-----captured two black stones
b wwwwwwww
bbbbbbbb
bbbbb

black to move  <-------same board configuration different initiative

w+bwwwwwww
b wwwwwwww
bbbbbbbb
bbbbb



On 8/15/05, John Tromp <John.Tromp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > The question is: repetition of what. Obviously repetition of something
> > you consider the 'state' of the game. PSK considers the state of the
> > game to be the position of the stones. Don argues you might as well
> > include the color to move as it's a rather vital piece of information.
> 
> Vital for the outcome of continued play, yes.
> But as to avoiding repetitive play, it's pretty much redundant,
> as the negligable difference of PSK vs SSK in practice shows.
> 
> The reason TT rules got to be as concise as they are, is by eschewing
> redundancy (as much as possible while preserving the feel of the game,
> which e.g. stone scoring would not) and reducing the rules to their
> essence. PSK is the natural choice in this light.
> 
> regards,
> -John
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/