Teaching Chinese Rules to Beginners ?
davekonz
using Chinese rule (CR), ie: area counting, from the start. Because
under CR captured stones do not contribute to scoring, it seems this
might be better for teaching as the student is not distracted by a
need to capture unless necessary, but rather to consider the
importance of playing on the outside of their territory. Also CR
makes estimating the score simpler during actual play which has a
large number of advantages. So it seems students might progress
faster overall.
Charles Matthews
Two points. Firstly, I'd believe that the progress of learners is more
closely linked to the teacher, than to the rule set. Second, while area
counting simplifies certain issues, one can only consider them 'swept under
the carpet', rather than dealt with.
Charles
Jeff Nowakowski
>
> I was wondering if anyone has experience with teaching Go to beginners
> using Chinese rule (CR), ie: area counting, from the start.
I had experience as a beginner being terribly confused by Japanese
rules, though I was trying to learn from a book and not from a
teacher. However, even if I had a teacher I still would have found
territory rules frustrating.
As a 9k on KGS I recently played 2 games where my opponent was
mistaken about the life & death status of a group. These kind of
issues should be resolved during play, not after the game.
My suggestion is to teach beginners area scoring and to not include a
dead-stone removal phase.
-Jeff
Warp
> I was wondering if anyone has experience with teaching Go to beginners
> using Chinese rule (CR)
Why Chinese rules and not some other simpler ruleset? AFAIK the Chinese
rules are not the simplest ones using area scoring.
OTOH, can you count efficient the area score of a 19x19 game? I know
I can't.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Warp
> I was wondering if anyone has experience with teaching Go to beginners
Why Chinese rules and not some other simpler ruleset? AFAIK the Chinese
rules are not the simplest ones using area scoring.
OTOH, can you count efficiently the area score of a 19x19 game? I know
I can't.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Will Twentyman
> davekonz <dave...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I was wondering if anyone has experience with teaching Go to beginners
>>using Chinese rule (CR)
>
>
>
> Why Chinese rules and not some other simpler ruleset? AFAIK the Chinese
> rules are not the simplest ones using area scoring.
>
> OTOH, can you count efficiently the area score of a 19x19 game? I know
> I can't.
I think I'd count efficiently by filling in each side's area with
stones, and then rearrange them to see who has at least half the board.
I'd fill in both to allow for locations that are open for seki.
--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
Barry Phease
> I was wondering if anyone has experience with teaching Go to beginners
> using Chinese rule (CR), ie: area counting, from the start.
Of course. That is how we do it in NZ. Of course it is often complicated
by the beginners having learned other stuff from books.
>Because
> under CR captured stones do not contribute to scoring, it seems this
> might be better for teaching as the student is not distracted by a need
> to capture unless necessary, but rather to consider the importance of
> playing on the outside of their territory.
In practice this makes no difference. Capturing is fun and being captured
is not; under any rules.
>Also CR makes estimating the
> score simpler during actual play which has a large number of advantages.
It is a little simpler for beginners, but not much.
> So it seems students might progress faster overall.
Not really. The stuff they have to learn is pretty much the same. The
quality of the teacher is more of an issue.
Using area rules makes a BIG difference in the first few games, as you
don't have to fudge over the end of the game. The first few games you
play until the last captured stone is removed. The beginner is allowed to
playinside their opponents territory even after there is no chance of
making even 1 eye.
Gradually the beginner realises for themselves that they can just remove
dead stones by agreement without cost.
A bad (or no) teacher can really mess up this process if using territory
rules to teach.
--
Barry Phease
Roy Schmidt
> OTOH, can you count efficiently the area score of a 19x19 game? I
know
> I can't.
Quickest method:
(1) Arbitrarily choose one colour to count.
(2) For that side, remove all dead stones, and then remove some stones
from that side's territory to make the area(s) simple to count (for
example, remove stones to make a 5x10 area, etc.). Be sure to count
points held in seki. The removed stones are simply returned to the
bowl.
(3) Remember the count of the open area. If the side being counted is
receiving komi, place one stone of that colour back on the board for
each two points of komi (so for 6 komi, place three stones on the
board). Do the opposite (remove stones) if that side is giving komi.
Now count the stones remaining on the board for that side. It helps
to arrange the stones in piles of 10 stones for quick verification.
(4) Add the stones to the count of the open area. If the total is
greater than 180, that side wins. If less than 180, the other side
wins. In case of an exact 180 count (which would occur if there was a
shared-liberty seki), White wins.
Cheers, Roy
--
my reply-to address is gostoned at insightbb dot com
-------------------------------------------------
Roy Schmidt
Part-time Translator for Yutopian
Full-time Professor of Business Computer Systems
Bradley University
davekonz
> Warp wrote:
> > OTOH, can you count efficiently the area score of a 19x19 game? I know
> > I can't.
Well everything takes practice. In go you only need to win by one, so
even being able to estimate the score is a potentially big advantage
because in the end all one really needs to do is win by one.
For example I find it a lot of fun on small boards, say using igowin
to practice counting using "area rules" and then play the game so to
only win by exactly one. To do this I find counting by 2's to work
well.
On 19x19 I can do it but not efficiently but am geting better. The
biggest advantage I have found though is - having estimated that I am
ahead allows me to go back and fix potentially weak spots inside my
teritory without having to worry about winning or loosing per-se. If
I'm behind or do not have a compelling lead, ie: having some idea of
just how many more points, stones & teritory, are needed helps
deciding if I can be conservative or need to be recless to get them.
Warp
> The
> biggest advantage I have found though is - having estimated that I am
> ahead allows me to go back and fix potentially weak spots inside my
> teritory without having to worry about winning or loosing per-se.
Actually if there are still moves worth points on the board, the scoring
method used has no effect on how playing inside your own territory affects
the score: Playing inside your territory is -1 point with either counting
method (of course losing sente by doing so affects the score in a lot
more complicated ways than this, but this is a simplified way of thinking
about it).
It's only after the last dame has been played and there are no more moves
worth points anymore when playing inside your own territory does not change
the score.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Warp
> Quickest method:
That might be so, but I have tried this method a couple of times and
it took me more than twice the time it took to count territory for the
same endgame position.
Rearranging territories to multiples of 10 is only slightly faster than
with territory scoring.
Making piles of 10 stones is difficult when there are opponent stones
scattered all over the board. The more the stones played during the game,
the more difficult this becomes, and the more time it takes. The easiest
way would be to remove all the opponent stones from the board altogether,
but this takes time as well.
> (4) Add the stones to the count of the open area. If the total is
> greater than 180, that side wins. If less than 180, the other side
> wins. In case of an exact 180 count (which would occur if there was a
> shared-liberty seki), White wins.
If there's a seki with an uneven amount of shared liberties, the amount
of points on the board for the players is less than 361 (because one of
the shared liberties does not belong to either one). The matter becomes
more difficult if there is more than one such seki. In that case
comparing the score of one of the players with 180 is not valid anymore.
If I'm not mistaken, if there are two such sekis, you would have to
compare the score with 179. It can easily become confusing.
Robert Jasiek
It also would have made a big difference in the small board
tournaments during the EGC. There I had to play some kyu players under
Japanese style rules.
They played many gote moves inside my territory because they did not
know which of those moves lose points. I, when leading by many points,
played quite some superfluous defensive moves inside my territory to
avoid time trouble in the no-byoyomi games and to avoid endless
discussions with referees about rather complex dead shapes.
Area scoring would have given my moves better meanings. It is
ridiculous having to use territory scoring rules if the games are
played as if area scoring rules were used.
Warp
> I think I'd count efficiently by filling in each side's area with
> stones, and then rearrange them to see who has at least half the board.
It doesn't sound very fast to first fill all territories with stones
(territories may sometimes be enormous) and then rearrange most of the 361
stones on the board two opposing sides.
> I'd fill in both to allow for locations that are open for seki.
What do you do if there are sekis with an uneven amount of shared
liberties? How do you fill and rearrange? After filling there will be
less than 361 stones on the board (because one of the shared liberties
can't be filled fairly). What if there is more than one such seki?
-
jas...@snafu.de (Robert Jasiek) wrote:
> [ some kyu players ] ... played many gote moves inside my
> points. I, when leading by many points, played quite some
> superfluous defensive moves inside my territory to avoid time
> trouble in the no-byoyomi games and to avoid endless
> discussions with referees about rather complex dead shapes.
Ridiculous. Has nobody ever heard of "hypothetical play" ?
R.Jasiek would do poorly when gambling in Korea for extra points.
> Area scoring would have given my moves better meanings. It is
> ridiculous having to use territory scoring rules if the games are
> played as if area scoring rules were used.
Your moves would have better meanings by passing when
you need not play, and using the opportunity to illustrate RuleSets.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. FINITE GEOMETRIES
http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~wcherowi/courses/m6406/cslnc.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Phease
> Roy Schmidt <r...@anti-spam.com> wrote:
>> Quickest method:
YMMV
> That might be so, but I have tried this method a couple of times and
> it took me more than twice the time it took to count territory for the
> same endgame position.
I suspect that you are much more practiced at one than the other, so it is
not a fair comparison. In any case even my 8 y.o. son can count up to 180
in twos. No rearrangement is necessary.
I wonder how often you or your opponent makes a mistake in rearranging.
Do you ever check the score again afterwards?
> If I'm not mistaken, if there are two such sekis, you would have to
> compare the score with 179. It can easily become confusing.
Again my 8 y.o. son is never confused by this. Perhaps you are easily
confused.
Will Twentyman
> Will Twentyman <wtwen...@read.my.sig> wrote:
>
>>I think I'd count efficiently by filling in each side's area with
>>stones, and then rearrange them to see who has at least half the board.
>
>
> It doesn't sound very fast to first fill all territories with stones
> (territories may sometimes be enormous) and then rearrange most of the 361
> stones on the board two opposing sides.
The rearranging would be to get rectangles. This doesn't seem all that
different from the way I've seen territory scoring done.
>> I'd fill in both to allow for locations that are open for seki.
>
> What do you do if there are sekis with an uneven amount of shared
> liberties? How do you fill and rearrange? After filling there will be
> less than 361 stones on the board (because one of the shared liberties
> can't be filled fairly). What if there is more than one such seki?
The neutral locations are just left empty. They would perhaps then get
migrated to a corner. On the other hand, what seems simple to one
person can be another person's complication.
Warp
> The rearranging would be to get rectangles. This doesn't seem all that
> different from the way I've seen territory scoring done.
There's a whole lot of difference.
When rearranging territories in territory counting, you mostly slide
stones on free space from one part of the territory to another (sometimes
you take a stone from one territory to another).
This would be completely different if the board would be completely
filled with 361 stones: You can't slide stones, but you need to
actually swap stones by lifting them. Doing this to hundreds of stones
does not sound very fast nor efficient.
> The neutral locations are just left empty. They would perhaps then get
> migrated to a corner.
But how do you make the comparison who won?
Warp
> I suspect that you are much more practiced at one than the other, so it is
> not a fair comparison. In any case even my 8 y.o. son can count up to 180
> in twos. No rearrangement is necessary.
For some odd reason I find it easier to count up to about 50-100 in
multiples of 10. Perhaps it's just me.
Robert Jasiek
> R.Jasiek would do poorly when gambling in Korea for extra points.
Do you consume less than one second for reading if the involved groups
are complex, the opponent plays many moves in your territory very
quickly, your remaining time is low, and you have to verify whether a
defensive move becomes necessary after posssibly each of the opposing
moves? I played a superfluous defensive move every fifth or tenth
superfluous opposing gote test move. Would you play fewer with only
one or minutes on the clock?
-
>> Ridiculous. Has nobody ever heard of "hypothetical play" ?
>> R.Jasiek would do poorly when gambling in Korea for extra points.
jas...@snafu.de (Robert Jasiek) wrote:
> Do you consume less than one second for reading if the
> involved groups are complex, the opponent plays many moves
> in your territory very quickly, your remaining time is low, and you
> have to verify whether a defensive move becomes necessary after
> posssibly each of the opposing moves? I played a superfluous
> defensive move every fifth or tenth superfluous opposing gote test
> move. Would you play fewer with only one or minutes on the clock?
Each of the groups and areas were pre-calculated with "need
to reply" questions already settled, should an opponent play there.
I consulted with one "adjudication of games oracle" who said that
every -tenth- move superfluous (when ahead) is still amateur _dan_
level play but every -fifth- move superfluous (when ahead) would
become _kyu_ level play.
Agreed -- some clocks using flag fall are difficult to read, yet
others (digital) can be used successfully out to the final second.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------
New -Exact- Square Lattice Site Percolation (restatement):
Pc = 2*combi(7,3)*sin( Pi / ((7*3)^2 - 2*combi(7,3)) )
--------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Mathematical Recreations: Plantations
http://www.gpj.connectfree.co.uk/plant.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
davekonz
> Actually if there are still moves worth points on the board, the scoring
> method used has no effect on how playing inside your own territory affects
> the score: Playing inside your territory is -1 point with either counting
> method (of course losing sente by doing so affects the score in a lot
> more complicated ways than this, but this is a simplified way of thinking
> about it).
>
Well sorry but I'm not sure your comment is true.
Under JS there is an definitive, unbranched –1 for playing within ones
own territory. But in CS ( or basic area rules ) things seem to be
different and depend upon how opponent plays.
1. If opponent passes then there is no –1 penalty. ( AGA area rules as
I understand them try to rectify this ).
2. If opponent plays also in side their own territory (rather than
pass) there is zero overall penalty
3. It's only if opponent makes a reasonable exterior ( to their
territory ) move, including domi, that the –1 penalty seems to apply.
And this is one of the great things IMHO about CS or AreaStuff – it
assumes each player plays reasonable and moku ( points ) enhancing
moves. Or perhaps more to the point, JS and CS (area ) are only
consistent when all plays are necessary. For example I was wondering;
What is the greatest difference that can occur between CS and JS ?
Playing actual games seemed to limit this difference to about 4.
But after pondering for a long while I came up with this scenario :
One player ( say white ), continues to play stones within their own
territory and opponent ( black ) does pass moves. Then the
difference between JS and CS is essentially limited only by about 180.
For example : Consider game where each side has 180 points (no
komi) but white continues to fill in till they have but 2 moku. But
black sustains their 180 moku by passing. In the end diff would be
about 180 pt.
Yes ?
Bill
>
> Each of the groups and areas were pre-calculated with "need
> to reply" questions already settled, should an opponent play there.
> I consulted with one "adjudication of games oracle" who said that
> every -tenth- move superfluous (when ahead) is still amateur _dan_
> level play but every -fifth- move superfluous (when ahead) would
> become _kyu_ level play.
>
I don't agree with this at all. In a real game, if I know I'm ahead,
and my opponent begins to play superfluous moves in my territory, I
answer them all. I do this because (1) I'm ahead anyway, and (2) so
that my opponent (who is obviously weaker than me) realizes *sooner*
that the moves are pointless. It has no relation to my playing
strength at all.
-
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> Each of the groups and areas were pre-calculated with "need
>> to reply" questions already settled, should an opponent play there.
>> I consulted with one "adjudication of games oracle" who said that
>> every -tenth- move superfluous (when ahead) is still amateur _dan_
>> level play but every -fifth- move superfluous (when ahead) would
>> become _kyu_ level play.
billw...@yahoo.com (Bill) wrote:
> I don't agree with this at all. In a real game, if I know I'm ahead,
> and my opponent begins to play superfluous moves in my territory,
> I answer them all. I do this because (1) I'm ahead anyway, and (2)
> so that my opponent (who is obviously weaker than me) realizes
> *sooner* that the moves are pointless. It has no relation to my
> playing strength at all.
Evidently you did not recognize the invisible type-face font
with *-smiley-* appended. This is not a "humor-impaired" game.
You have not defined what is meant by "a real game" (as by some
contrast to "a fake game" or "an unreal game"), nor do you supply
some unambiguous meaning for "I know I'm ahead..." (i.e. what
does it mean for a game of Go to "know" the score and yet play
as if you do -not- "know" the score?) :-) <-- (visible *-smiley-* )
Perhaps there is some interest in the "obviously weaker" (sic!)
opponent to become not so much "obviously weaker" but instead
to improve. It seems to me a courtesy to encourage an opponent
to develop their game perception, and learn something by the loss.
Maybe that's the "real game" as well, when -all- players in the club
get stronger by utilizing EVERY opportunity for analysis of a position.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
China goes for gold in jazzing up public toilets for Olympics
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/20/MNGIL8A7C21.DTL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
davekonz
> Of course. That is how we do it in NZ. Of course it is often complicated
> by the beginners having learned other stuff from books.
>
Barry, as you seem to have some actual experience in this matter I
was wondering if you could provide any insights about the following or
related issues as you see fit:
When & how to inform (teach) students about "Territory Rules" after
having started them on "Area Rules".
. Do you not mention it at all and wait till they raise the issue ?
. Do you mention it and say don't worry about it when you play on the
internet for now ?
. Do you defer talking about it till they have a clear mastery of the
"Area Rules" and suggest they not play on the internet for a while or
read about Japanese scoring for a while?
. Other ?
Any insights as to what types of statements or approaches to
describing and contrasting the two methods seem to confuse students
vs allow them to embrace both ? ie : An obvious and not overly
confusing example and explanation as to the equivalence of the two
scoring systems.
In other words have you come up with a natural temporal and conceptual
progression for presenting info about "Territory Rules" in a way that
allows students to play effectively, minimally so they don't argue
about the results, and don't become overly confused using either
rules system.
And lastly how do these ideas relate to age groups.
The above stuff is still a big question in my mind, but one that seems
is somewhat forced sooner than it might otherwise need be, and seems
should be addressed before they start playing internet go or get
another beginners ideas on the subject.
Note : I've read about NZ rules in "The Go Players Almanac 2001",
pretty sparse.
Thanks
Dave k
Barry Phease
> Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.08.11....@es.co.nz>...
>
>> Of course. That is how we do it in NZ. Of course it is often complicated
>> by the beginners having learned other stuff from books.
>>
>
>
> Barry, as you seem to have some actual experience in this matter I
> was wondering if you could provide any insights about the following or
> related issues as you see fit:
>
> When & how to inform (teach) students about "Territory Rules" after
> having started them on "Area Rules".
> . Do you not mention it at all and wait till they raise the issue ?
> . Do you mention it and say don't worry about it when you play on the
> internet for now ?
> . Do you defer talking about it till they have a clear mastery of the
> "Area Rules" and suggest they not play on the internet for a while or
> read about Japanese scoring for a while?
> . Other ?
It depends on a number of factors. Ideally you would wait until they ask,
or are likely to need to use other rules (eg overseas trip). However most
English language books use territory scoring, so you have to mention it
early. I usually tell them that other people use different
definitions that come out to about the same thing. After that I wait
until they ask. I wouldn't suggest that they refrain from reading books
or playing on the internet.
>
> Any insights as to what types of statements or approaches to describing
> and contrasting the two methods seem to confuse students vs allow them
> to embrace both ? ie : An obvious and not overly confusing example and
> explanation as to the equivalence of the two scoring systems.
I wouldn't try to teach equivalence until they have a good understanding
of scoring. Some with a mathematical bent want to it explained, but most
people are happy to play with whatever scoring method is used, and accept
that it doesn't make any difference to the way they play.
>
> In other words have you come up with a natural temporal and conceptual
> progression for presenting info about "Territory Rules" in a way that
> allows students to play effectively, minimally so they don't argue about
> the results, and don't become overly confused using either rules
> system.
Most people are not hung up about it. Mostly the ones who are, are
capable of understanding quickly the equivalence. Many New Zealanders
play on servers without problems using server rules. They don't worry too
much even when sekis are counted differently from the way presented in
books. It is accepted that there are different rules.
>
> And lastly how do these ideas relate to age groups.
Children are easier because they just accept things. Most importantly
don't confuse them with too much information at once.
>
> The above stuff is still a big question in my mind, but one that seems
> is somewhat forced sooner than it might otherwise need be, and seems
> should be addressed before they start playing internet go or get another
> beginners ideas on the subject.
>
> Note : I've read about NZ rules in "The Go Players Almanac 2001", pretty
> sparse.
What is presented there is the minimum. More explanation is available at
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Google search for the hundred most recent articles in rec.games.go
turned this up, so either Google is grossly broken in yet another
way beyond the many ways I already know that it's broken, or this
newsgroup has been very inactive over the past five years.
When teaching absolute beginners, including computer software I
wrote myself, how to play Go, I've used whole-area counting since
the 1970's, for pretty much the same reasons you explain, plus that
it makes computer scoring (hence computer minmax calculations and
consequent choice of highest-score move) easier. However I don't
use the *actual* (alleged) Chinese scoring of subtracting one
side's score from half the board. Rather I directly compute *each*
score, then subtract those two to get the score-difference hence
winner and winning margin.
Student plays first on small board, no komi nor handicap. For
absolute beginners just learning the (simplified) rules and how to
kill opponent's stones/groups and how to create one's own groups
that can't be killed, on 5*5 board, I require a win by at least
three points, thus avoiding the temptation of mirror play, and
avoiding my need to make non-optimal moves to break mirror play.
Sometimes, after that first goal has been achieved, I challenge the
student to take the whole board, kill *everything* I play, which is
actually rather easy once the student has basic tactical skills.
On 7*7 and larger, one-point win is sufficient, and kill-everything
is *impossible* against any halfway-decent player such as this
teacher. Sizes up through 9*9 have been essentially analyzed to
where they are no longer a "real game" for knowledgeable players,
but AFAIK 11*11 is still a "real game" in that it hasn't been
sufficiently/completely analyzed. Does anybody know otherwise?
Side question: Back in the mid/late-1970's I wrote a computer
program that always won if given first move (no komi, whole-area
scoring) on 5*5 or 7*7. Has anybody done likewise for 9*9 yet?
Or is 9*9 still "fully analyzed but not yet fully programmed",
or is it now "fully analyzed *AND*ALSO* fully programmed"?
Robert Jasiek
(Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
>so either Google is grossly broken in yet another
>way beyond the many ways I already know that it's broken,
It is becoming more and more broken WRT to newsgroup search. They
simply don't care about newsnet. Even the most recent messages they
are having great difficulties with. Instead they show every online
newspaper message well in the Web search.
Even specialized newsnet storage webpages have become worse and worse;
maybe there are too many newsgroups now?
Terrybenson
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:59:31 -0800, seeWebInst...@rem.intarweb.org
>
I have used area counting with beginners since 1975 when it was made
clear to me (who learned with Japanese rules) how much better area
rules were.
Naturally I now use AGA rules with pass stones since they rather
seamlessly bridge the differences between territory and area.
Beginners can be sure a game is over. They kill everything they can
and play anywhere they can. It's inelegant, but they learn soon
enough. They can play and learn with no teacher around. This is the
major weakness of the Asian rule sets and an issue which they (because
there are always professional nearby) do not appreciate.
Additionally the mechanics are very close to territory rules so the
contrast when the new player needs to learn or play territory style is
not great.
Terry
Planar
> Side question: Back in the mid/late-1970's I wrote a computer
> program that always won if given first move (no komi, whole-area
> scoring) on 5*5 or 7*7. Has anybody done likewise for 9*9 yet?
> Or is 9*9 still "fully analyzed but not yet fully programmed",
> or is it now "fully analyzed *AND*ALSO* fully programmed"?
Computer programs are just beginning to get good enough to beat pros on 9x9
without handicap. Are you sure 9x9 is fully analyzed?
--
Planar
remove .invalid from my address to send me mail
"Surprise. Then just use AGA rules and that's it." - Robert Jasiek
marc gonzalez-carnicer
played 2 days ago in Cadiz, Spain?
there was some confusion with the rules and the counting system.
On 8 Des, 17:07, Planar <damien.doli...@inria.fr.invalid> wrote:
> In article <REM-2009dec03-...@Yahoo.Com>,
> seeWebInst...@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas,http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
Robert Jasiek
<carn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>have you heard about the result of Moyo vs Chun Poong Jo 8p that was
>played 2 days ago in Cadiz, Spain?
>
>there was some confusion with the rules and the counting system.
So who was confused and how?
marc gonzalez-carnicer
On 9 Des, 17:50, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 08:06:30 -0800 (PST), marc gonzalez-carnicer
>
> >have you heard about the result of Moyo vs Chun Poong Jo 8p that was
> >played 2 days ago in Cadiz, Spain?
>
> >there was some confusion with the rules and the counting system.
>
> So who was confused and how?
i was not there, and i've only heard incomplete oral reports. if i
understood correctly, the pro thought he was leading by .5 with
japanese rules, but with chinese rules he actually lost by .5 or 1.5.
i do not know if he passed when he could have filled dame, we have to
wait for a more complete report.
Robert Jasiek
<carn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>the pro thought he was leading by .5 with
>japanese rules, but with chinese rules he actually lost by .5 or 1.5.
If so, it would be interesting to hear whether the tournament
director, game manager or whoever has told him before under which
rules the game was being played.
marc gonzalez-carnicer
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:15:18 -0800 (PST), marc gonzalez-carnicer
>
> >the pro thought he was leading by .5 with
> >japanese rules, but with chinese rules he actually lost by .5 or 1.5.
>
> If so, it would be interesting to hear whether the tournament
> director, game manager or whoever has told him before under which
> rules the game was being played.
For what I heard, the pro was indeed informed about the ruleset.
Nick Wedd
<jas...@snafu.de> writes
The results of the "Man [sic] vs MoGo challenge" in C�diz, with the game
records, are given at http://www.computer-go.info/h-c/index.html .
The game referred to here is the first 9x9 game with Chun Poong Jho 8p.
After he had allowed it to connect the final ko, and passed, both
players claimed to have won. He had been informed of the rules
(Chinese, 7.5 komi) in writing and orally; but either he failed to take
this in, or he failed to deduce the consequences.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk