IMSA Membership
Robert Jasiek
clarification about the conditions to become a member of the
International Mind Sports Federation (so far only Western Chess,
Bridge, Go, Checkers):
1) The game's international federation is GAISF member,
2) the game is spread world-wide, and
3) it is a game of knowledge.
Because of reason (3) backgammon and poker are rejected. Therefore I
conclude that games that are a combination of luck and knowledge are
not eligible and that the luck in drawing the right to make the first
move or the luck in tournament pairings, seedings, etc. are neglected
for the purpose of classifying the games.
Considering that Go is not spread in many African or oceanic and some
other countries yet, condition (2) appears to be interpreted with some
tolerance. Maybe this can be interpreted as "There should be a,
however small, permanent population of players on every continent
(except for Antartica).".
While (1) looks somewhat reasonable since it requires a certain degree
of organizational standard, it is hard to judge whether that condition
is fair since information about GAISF membership adoption politics is
sparse.
So let us guess: Which might be the next likely IMSA members? Xianqi,
Othello, Shogi, mathematical number games? Games specific to a
particular continent like Awale may have much harder times, I would
guess. All those countless wargames, German games, and computer games
would fail for at least one of the conditions, it seems.
-
Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> As Martin Stiassny reports in DGoZ 2/2009 on page 3, now
> there is some clarification about the conditions to become
> a member of the International Mind Sports Federation
> (so far only Western Chess, Bridge, Go, Checkers):
>
> 1) The game's international federation is GAISF member,
> 2) the game is spread world-wide, and
> 3) it is a game of knowledge.
>
> Because of reason (3) backgammon and poker are rejected.
Why do some people have "better luck" than others?
Could there be some "knowledge" which affects "luck" ?
> Therefore I conclude that games that are a combination of luck
> and knowledge are not eligible and that the luck in drawing the right
> to make the first move or the luck in tournament pairings, seedings,
> etc. are neglected for the purpose of classifying the games.
Which is academic twiddling because it is far more crucial
to the people involved that people are being classified rather
than the games that people play.
> Considering that Go is not spread in many African or oceanic and
> some other countries yet, condition (2) appears to be interpreted
> with some tolerance. Maybe this can be interpreted as "There
> should be a, however small, permanent population of players on
> every continent (except for Antartica).".
Spread "world-wide" seems to be a more stringent
requirement than mere presence on "every continent."
> While (1) looks somewhat reasonable since it requires a certain
> degree of organizational standard, it is hard to judge whether
> that condition is fair since information about GAISF membership
> adoption politics is sparse.
Seems reasonable to suppose that it is fair unless you
can supply evidence to the contrary.
> So let us guess: Which might be the next likely IMSA members?
> Xianqi, Othello, Shogi, mathematical number games? Games
> specific to a particular continent like Awale may have much harder
> times, I would guess. All those countless wargames, German games,
> and computer games would fail for at least one of the conditions ...
If there is a fair procedure for GAISF membership surely
the procedure does not rely upon speculations to a newsgroup.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Jewish Congress Organized Nazis
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=7338
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
> Could there be some "knowledge" which affects "luck" ?
The knowledge does not affect the luck (unless somebody has knowledge
about throwing dice well...) but the winning probabilities despite the
luck. Anyway, games with a significant luck impact are rejected.
> Spread "world-wide" seems to be a more stringent
> requirement than mere presence on "every continent."
Yes, but only a bit. Consider the numbers of Go players with African
passports:
5 Morocco (all living in Europe)
A few in Kenia
200 Madagascar (most in Antananarivo)
300 South Africa
A few in other countries.
This is not a particularly dense population - barely above presence on
the continent at all.
>> information about GAISF membership
>> adoption politics is sparse.
>
> Seems reasonable to suppose that it is fair unless you
> can supply evidence to the contrary.
It would be fair if enough information were spread so that we could
judge.
-
> The knowledge does not affect the luck (unless somebody has
> knowledge about throwing dice well...) but the winning probabilities
> despite the luck. Anyway, games with a significant luck impact
> are rejected.
Perhaps "Robert" has not yet seen _Oceans_13_.
Why the "luck" impact rejected? Because there is less
asssurance that the results are repeatable? Yet suppose
that results from a game, considered "luck", are repeatable?
>> Spread "world-wide" seems to be a more stringent
>> requirement than mere presence on "every continent."
> Yes, but only a bit. Consider the numbers of Go players with
> African passports:
>
> 5 Morocco (all living in Europe)
> A few in Kenia
> 200 Madagascar (most in Antananarivo)
> 300 South Africa
> A few in other countries.
>
> This is not a particularly dense population - barely above
> presence on the continent at all.
So what's the goal here, to have everybody worldwide
play the same games, or to offer underrepresented countries
an opportunity to send players to the world scene -- which
they might not ordinarily see -- or to establish some "track
records" for countries typically successful year after year,
or not? To establish that "bailout money" might be spent
upon the gamers rather than propping up soggy mortgages?
>> Seems reasonable to suppose that it is fair unless you
>> can supply evidence to the contrary.
> It would be fair if enough information were spread so that
> we could judge.
Wouldn't such information be gleaned by an application
process ?
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Blair 'knew of secret policy that allowed torture of Britons'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193904/Tony-Blair-knew-secret-policy-allowed-torture-Britons.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
> So what's the goal here, to have everybody worldwide
To understand what exactly the IMSA condition "world-wide" is supposed
to mean. If it is very liberal, then we might see attempts of
wargamers, German games gamers, or computer go gamers to join GAISF +
IMSA, too (provided those are games of knowledge).
> Wouldn't such information be gleaned by an application
> process ?
Shouldn't it be available also to every player of games that are
already IMSA members? It is in their interest to know whom they will
meet in international events during the following years!
-
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> So what's the goal here ...
> supposed to mean. If it is very liberal, then we might see attempts
> of wargamers, German games gamers, or computer go gamers to
> join GAISF + IMSA, too (provided those are games of knowledge).
Well, you think that it is "knowledge" which is the criterion
for selection when instead I would suppose that the qualifying
feature is more akin to repeatability, decisiveness, popularity,
culture or tradition, and likelihood of -continuing- popularity,
(not faddishness or mere fashion). While some intelligence is
an asset "sports" is not exactly termed "knowledge" enterprise.
Whether by individual or by team, there is no generally shared
"knowledge" for decision-making by all people generally. The
competitive atmosphere is distinct from a post-mortem analysis
where, we think, aspects of "knowledge" might apply. During
competition opponents do not seek to reveal "knowledge" to
each other concerning best and/or recommended plays. In
fact each player waits for the opponent to make some error
by which a wedge or leverage can be obtained for the win.
Perhaps it is the nature of activity at a tournament rather
than (supposed) category of the game which defines whether
something is deemed appropriate by the fair-minded agencies.
After all, in each of these cases we are discussing "sports" of
some variety and not that dispassioned abstract "knowledge"
endeavor which, by its very nature, is becoming more and
more encyclopedic, and less attainable by human subjects.
>> Wouldn't such information be gleaned by an application
>> process ?
> Shouldn't it be available also to every player of games that are
> already IMSA members? It is in their interest to know whom they
> will meet in international events during the following years!
Even after meeting someone over the gameboard the
term "knowledge" hardly applies. One might live with another
person for life and never reach a "knowledge" condition.
Consider family members who are not quite understandable.
It would be burdensome to continually verify whether an
agency was fair. Wouldn't it be simpler to wait for an ethical
transgression, then send all perpetrators to the firing squad ?
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oz Cops Execute Man With 28 Taser Shots
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C25654540-601%2C00.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
> I would suppose that the qualifying
> feature is more akin to repeatability, decisiveness, popularity,
> culture or tradition, and likelihood of -continuing- popularity,
These might have been useful criteria and I have been surprised that
they have not been set.
> Whether by individual or by team, there is no generally shared
> "knowledge" for decision-making by all people generally.
I have also wondered whether knowledge is a good criterion since the
games are about decision-making and decision-making might be more
important than knowledge. Complete information (as a contrast to luck
or undecidable problems) is another relevant criterion.
> dispassioned abstract "knowledge"
> endeavor which, by its very nature, is becoming more and
> more encyclopedic, and less attainable by human subjects.
Knowledge if it reveals easier structure can make a game more
accessible for human decision-making.
-
>> Whether by individual or by team, there is no generally shared
>> "knowledge" for decision-making by all people generally.
> since the games are about decision-making and decision-making
> might be more important than knowledge. Complete information
As has been discussed many times there is a question
concerning whether "complete information" occurs when
arbitrating incomplete positions. If the rules state that players
are to agree on end-state status then they are not applying
"complete information" concerning the decision for a game.
Including tournament director(s) & bystanders in the process
brings "additional information" to the scene but whether that
"additional information" yields "completion" may be in dispute.
A position may be "completed" according to player agreement
yet other players might not have agreed the same way. If the
computer opponent and a player disagree about a scoring
issue would it be other computers or other players to whom
one turns for advice?
>> ... dispassioned abstract "knowledge"
>> endeavor which, by its very nature, is becoming more and
>> more encyclopedic, and less attainable by human subjects.
> Knowledge if it reveals easier structure can make a game more
> accessible for human decision-making.
I have asked many times for examples of endgame
positions that the computer cannot score correctly and yet
these are never being produced. The reason they are not
being produced is either due to an impossibility of supplying
them or due to some likelihood that there is an encyclopedic
problem of having too many of them that humans cannot
even begin to comprehend the difficulties. Despite the lack
of examples, from time-to-time there are the usual assertions
or suggestions to this newsgroup that ultimately the computers
are somehow going to be fallible when trends are indicating
otherwise.
Physics is a race between the acquisition of knowledge
and the onset of Alzheimer's (or other forms of dementia).
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-( article almost but doesn't quite mention that much of the
mental illness may itself be engendered by such poisons )-
========================================
PLANET FUNNY FARM
The planet of six billion brain-dead shites
========================================
Human beings are real funny.
All human beings are displaying symptoms of very severe mental
illness. There are so many symptoms of your insanity that it's
difficult to know where to begin, and perhaps it's better to mention
only one or two of your symptoms at any time, as your minds are so
limited and it's difficult for you to take in anything truthful.
It's easy to prove you are mentally ill. One only has to quote pages 9
to 11 of 'Slaughter of the Innocent / Imperatrice Nuda' by Hans
Ruesch, showing that the poisons that are destroying the biosphere are
not being tested. Nearly all human beings accept the lie that 'animal
tests' are 'safety tests,' when in fact 'animal tests' are the
collective suicide / self genocide / planetary biocide of life on
earth.
A small number of human beings say they understand what is happening,
and then they refuse to even suggest that anyone might ever put a stop
to it. This was demonstrated in 1990 and has been reaffirmed daily
ever since. The obvious and only way to halt the collective suicide /
biocide of life on earth is to carry out citizens arrests on every
vivisector in the world, yet the proposal to do just that back in 1990
was greeted with total silence on every continent, and that silence
has been renewed daily ever since.
A species determined to bring about its own extinction by filling its
blood and its brains with 'animal tested' / untested poisons is a
mentally ill species.
Then the worst aspect of your mental derangement is the fact that
human beings - all human beings - are refusing to nurture and protect
the young of the species. That is the most glaring symptom of insanity
- the refusal to nurture and protect your young - and that symptom of
insanity is displayed by ALL OF YOU. All human beings - without even
one exception anywhere - are in favour of bequeathing to the young
generation poisoned bodies and a near-lifeless biosphere, wrecked
beyond repair by 'animal tested' / untested poisons.
You refused to end our mass suicide in 1990 by carrying out citizens
arrests of all known vivisectors throughout the world, which would be
the only way to shake off your death wish and prove yourselves sane.
You will continue to refuse to stop the mass suicide / biocide of life
on earth via 'animal tested' / untested poisons.
Meanwhile, you further display your insanity by passing 'laws' saying
it's wrong to 'offend' each other by telling the truth about racial
traits, but there is no law to prohibit you from dragging me down with
you as you fill our bodies and our biosphere with the ever-increasing
avalanche of 'animal tested' / untested poisons. And there is no law
to prohibit you from murdering my children along with your own
children with your avalanche of 'animal tested' / untested poisons.
'Thou shalt not kill?'
So you're not allowed to 'offend' me and I'm not allowed to 'offend'
you, but you are allowed to murder me and to murder my children with
your avalanche of 'animal tested' / untested poisons, while you
pretend that human beings are not mentally ill......
The simple explanation of your global doomsday cult with six billion
members in a mass suicide pact - the simple explanation of your
collective death wish - was supplied to you in 'Mankind In Amnesia' by
Immanuel Velikovsky in 1982, and you ignored it. Nothing will stand in
the way of your determination to destroy life on earth and to bequeath
to your children poisoned bodies and a near-lifeless biosphere wrecked
by 'animal tested' / untested poisons.
A species which refuses to nurture and protect its young is a very
severely mentally ill species. All six billion human beings
emphatically are determined to kill their own children and
grandchildren by continuing to pretend that the poisons we are using
to kill our babies are 'safety tested,' when there were never any
'safety tests,' only non-tests, 'animal tests,' which are the
instrument of our collective suicide / self genocide / planetary
biocide by self poisoning.
Oh and, by the way, this is NOT a case of a corrupt, evil ruling group
cruelly abusing and exploiting us saintly victims of the ruling
group.
There is no 'us and them.'
We're all 'them.'
There is a mentally ill species in an advanced state of slow-motion
suicide by self poisoning via 'animal tested' / untested poisons. The
ruling group are a creation of our collective mental illness, and they
are running scared too, just as terrified of the truth as you are.
SO DO NOT EVER TELL ME THAT YOU ARE NOT MENTALLY ILL, YOU STUPID
USELESS SHITHEADS, ALL SIX BILLION OF YOU CHILD KILLERS WITH YOUR
AVALANCHE OF 'ANIMAL TESTED' / UNTESTED POISONS TO MURDER YOUR OWN
BABIES AND DESTROY ALMOST ALL LIFE ON EARTH, LEAVING A FEW SURVIVORS
DEPENDENT ON VAMPIRISM AND CANNIBALISM, SOON TO TAKE EFFECT, WHILE YOU
ENACT LAWS SAYING WE MUST NEVER 'OFFEND' ONE ANOTHER...... FUCKING
IDIOTS ALL OF YOU.
----------------------
Jayzizz, someone had to spell it out in direct language for ye fuckers
before the end comes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FOLLOWING IS EXTRACTED FROM PAGES 9 TO 11 OF "SLAUGHTER OF THE
INNOCENT / IMPERATRICE NUDA" BY HANS RUESCH AND IS IN ITSELF PROOF
THAT ALL HUMAN BEINGS WITHOUT EXCEPTION ARE VERY SEVERELY MENTALLY
ILL:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is the great example of penicillin - if we want to consider this
a useful drug.
Its discoverers said they were fortunate. No guinea pigs were
available for the toxicity tests, so they used mice instead.
Penicillin kills guinea pigs.
But the same guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine,
one of the deadliest poisons for humans
- but not for monkeys.
Certain wild berries are deadly for human beings,
but birds thrive on them.
A dose of belladona that would kill a man
is harmless for rabbits and goats.
Calomelan doesn't influence the secretion of bile in dogs,
but can treble it in man.
The use of digitalis - the main remedy for cardiac patients and the
saviour of countless lives the world over -
was retarded for a long time because it was first tested on dogs,
in which it dangerously raises blood pressure.
And chloroform is so toxic to dogs that for many years this valuable
anesthetic was not employed on patients.
On the other hand a dose of opium that would kill a man
is harmless to dogs and chickens.
Datura and henbane are poison for man,
but food for the snail.
The mushroom *amanita phalloides*, a small dose of which can wipe out
a whole human family,
is consumed without ill effects by the rabbit, one of the most common
laboratory animals.
A porcupine can eat in one lump without discomfort as much opium as a
human addict smokes in two weeks, and wash it down with enough prussic
acid to poison a regiment of soldiers.
The sheep can swallow enormous quantities of arsenic,
once the murderers' favourite poison.
Potassium cyanide, deadly for us,
is harmless for the owl,
but one of our common field pumpkins can put a horse into a serious
state of agitation.
Morphine, which calms and anesthetizes man,
causes maniacal excitement in cats and mice,
but dogs can stand doses up to 20 times higher than man.
On the other hand, our sweet almonds can kill foxes and chickens,
and our common parsley is poison to parrots...........
There are enough such instances to fill a book - all proving that it
would be difficult to find a more absurd and less scientific method of
medical research (than animal experimentation).
Moreover, the anguish and sufferings of the animals, deprived of their
natural habitat or habitual surroundings, terrorized by what they see
in the laboratories and the brutalities they are subjected to, alter
their mental balance and organic reactions to such an extent that ANY
result is a priori valueless.
The laboratory animal is a monster, made so by the experimenters.
Physically and mentally it has very little in common with a normal
animal, and much less with man.
As even Claude Bernard (1813-1878), founder of the modern
vivisectionist method, wrote in his Physiologie Operatoire (page
152):
"The experimental animal is never in a normal state. The normal state
is merely a supposition, an assumption."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE VIVISECTION SWINDLE /
= THE COLLECTIVE SUICIDE OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN SPECIES:
Animal Experimentation: the Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_174g5kg85dn
Vivisection - Its Crucial Role in the Scheme of Things
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_83w8mzhvgj
The Vaccination Fraud (Rattigan / Mendelsohn)
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_126hgz9s8fb
The Cancer Business (Rattigan)
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_178fz8mgvgw
========================================
So, welcome to
*PLANET FUNNY FARM*
the planet of six billion brain-dead shites (child killers)
who are legally entitled to commit filicide and biocide
but are not allowed to "offend" one another
while being convinced that they possess rational minds
and are so mentally ill that they do not know they are mentally ill
========================================
Robert Jasiek
> As has been discussed many times there is a question
> concerning whether "complete information" occurs when
> arbitrating incomplete positions.
Ok; for the sake of this thread I presumed complete and unambiguous
rules of play.
> I have asked many times for examples of endgame
> positions that the computer cannot score correctly and yet
> these are never being produced.
Take the good old four 8-tuple-kos position under AGA Rules and tell
me the computer program that does interpret it correctly also on the
level of decision-making. Or does that not count as "endgame"
position? What shall be eligible?
-
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> As has been discussed many times there is a question
>> concerning whether "complete information" occurs when
>> arbitrating incomplete positions.
> unambiguous rules of play.
Right, yet even in situations where you had agreed to
play in a tournament after having read, and believed that you
understood, their "complete and unambiguous rules of play"
there had evolved some sort of dispute which even the T.D.
was unable to resolve. You wished to take it further, to the
EGF, maybe to the IGF and IMSA after that ...
>> I have asked many times for examples of endgame
>> positions that the computer cannot score correctly and yet
>> these are never being produced.
> Take the good old four 8-tuple-kos position under AGA Rules
> and tell me the computer program that does interpret it correctly
> also on the level of decision-making. Or does that not count as
> "endgame" position? What shall be eligible?
For the sake of fairness I searched ALL newsgroups for "8-tuple-ko"
yet did not find any references, even to include rec.games.go .
Granted that "google news" seems to have truncated searching
after May 29th, despite the fact that numerous people have been
informing "google news" of their oversight, at least there should
have been some prior reference in this newsgroup if YOU are now
going to reference it.
Quite fortunately there was a reference at godiscussions.com,
which also qualifies for the "google award" because there is only
ONE reference and, coincicdentally, it occurs in an article authored
by you, but not at your own website.
http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5982
Bill Spight claims to have a "proof" for it, which implies that a
computer program can solve the problem, implementing the proof.
Why can the problem not translate to a Japanese method of
scoring endgame positions where no ko can be recaptured ?
Why did nobody reply to your remarks at godiscussions.com ?
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9,200 Potentially Deadly Ft. Detrick Pathogens Missing ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703271.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
> For the sake of fairness I searched ALL newsgroups for "8-tuple-ko"
> yet did not find any references, even to include rec.games.go .
> Granted that "google news" seems to have truncated searching
Google news search is very bad and does not give access to most old
articles any longer. For comparison, Google webpage search is over a
1000 times better. So it is not surprising that you could not find the
old news articles by a simple search. There was also a thread in
de.rec.spiele.brett+karten.
> http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5982
This is the thing but discussion elsewhere was more involved.
> Bill Spight claims to have a "proof" for it, which implies that a
> computer program can solve the problem, implementing the proof.
Sure, but no program HAS implemented it, right?
> Why can the problem not translate to a Japanese method of
> scoring endgame positions where no ko can be recaptured ?
Of course, that can be done, except that I do not understand why it
would be Japanese that no kos can be captured. Japanese is that
infinite (or at least recurring) ko captures annull the game. So
strategy becomes trivial and computers should be able to implement it
for Japanese style ko rules.
> Why did nobody reply to your remarks at godiscussions.com ?
1) Discussion was elsewhere (the theory had been published first in
the mailing list go-rules). 2) Almost nobody put in enough effort to
understand the theory?
-
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> Bill Spight claims to have a "proof" for it, which implies that a
>> computer program can solve the problem, implementing the proof.
Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> Sure, but no program HAS implemented it, right?
My proposition was to find a position that no computer could score,
not whether some computer program now exists which scores it.
However, Bill Spight's description supplied a fairly comprehensible
recipe, and if there are additional quirks and twists these can be
managed by means of elaboration.
>> Why can the problem not translate to a Japanese method of
>> scoring endgame positions where no ko can be recaptured ?
> Of course, that can be done, except that I do not understand why it
> would be Japanese that no kos can be captured. Japanese is that
> infinite (or at least recurring) ko captures annull the game. So
> strategy becomes trivial and computers should be able to implement
> it for Japanese style ko rules.
There is hypothetical play for scoring a position, applied when
both players are in contention, attributed to a Japanese referee.
I did not say that no kos could be captured. I said that no ko can
be RE-captured. Here we began from a position already reduced
to 1-stone simple kos. It will be crucial that computers implement
Japanese style rules owing to the fact that AGA Rules require
player agreement if the Area Counting rules are invoked.
>> Why did nobody reply to your remarks at godiscussions.com ?
> 1) Discussion was elsewhere (the theory had been published
> first in the mailing list go-rules). 2) Almost nobody put in enough
> effort to understand the theory?
It seems that the theory has been understood by referees.
I did not hear of reports that proper referee decisions were
being taken to court.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------
The 5 Myths of Liberalism
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=7363
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
> My proposition was to find a position that no computer could score,
Take an arbitrary pro game 30 or 50 moves before the dame filling.
This should suffice for your purpose.
-
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> My proposition was to find a position that no computer could score,
> Take an arbitrary pro game 30 or 50 moves before the dame filling.
> This should suffice for your purpose.
Perhaps I should be more clear. For the purposes of this
subdiscussion we were discussing -ENDGAME- POSITIONS.
Your example of the "8-tuple-ko" had filled dame (other than
points utilized for seki or ko). The AGA "pass stone" rule one
method of moving the position into an -ENDGAME- position.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------
NASA Moon Bombing Violates Space Law
http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2009m6d19-NASA-moon-bombing-violates-space-law--may-cause-conflict-with-lunar-extraterrestrial-civilizations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
> For the purposes of this
> subdiscussion we were discussing -ENDGAME- POSITIONS.
So what do you call an endgame position for the purpose of this
subthreat?
-
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> For the purposes of this
>> subdiscussion we were discussing -ENDGAME- POSITIONS.
> So what do you call an endgame position for the purpose of this
> subthreat?
Are you serious? There are two interpretations of the AGA
"pass stone" rule. In the more strict interpretation the player who
passes hands a stone to the opponent EACH TIME PASS OCCURS.
In practice the strict interpretation is unnecessary. Each player
seeks to avoid the loss of one point, so the "pass stone" needs
to apply only once in the game, signalling the end of dame fill.
Endgame positions are signalled by game stop, after having
applied the "pass stone" rule. Neither player who plays optimally
allows the loss even of one point. It is possible that weaker players
might arrive at game stop, and fulfillment of a "pass stone", even
without dame fill. A computer program, however, is sufficiently
well-versed in dame detection that contrived positions as might
be the result of weaker players do not occur. The computer
programs are not quite as weak as those weaker players.
Once dame fill has occurred at game stop, scoring may
commence by the convention of no ko recapture.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Simple Explanation of The Basic Monetary System
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=7325
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
> "pass stone" rule.
Sorry, I lack time for OT discussion of pass stones.
> A computer program, however, is sufficiently
> well-versed in dame detection that contrived positions as might
> be the result of weaker players do not occur.
With exceptions like the KGS scoring algorithm.
***
Which (I repeat: which) positions do you accept as endgame positions?
-
You lack time for implementation of the final solution.
And why do you suppose IMSA would accept membership
when you refuse to discuss pass stones in the RuleSet ?
>> A computer program, however, is sufficiently
>> well-versed in dame detection that contrived positions
>> as might be the result of weaker players do not occur.
> With exceptions like the KGS scoring algorithm.
Well, that's KGS. And what was the specific position?
This discussion isn't about the problems of a particular
computer program: it's about whether some endgame
position cannot be scored correctly by -ANY- computer.
> Which (I repeat: which) positions do you accept as endgame positions?
Your "8-tuple ko" problem appears to be an endgame position.
Shall we now implement the "no ko-recapture method" there?
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pagans, Partygoers Greet Solstice at Stonehenge
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=7366
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
> it's about whether some endgame
> position cannot be scored correctly by -ANY- computer.
>
So what about contructing an endgame ko decision problem on the NxN
boards that is simply computationally too complex for all computers
ever? See Tromp's paper on EXPTIME.
-
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> ... whether some endgame
>> position cannot be scored correctly by -ANY- computer.
>>
>> Your "8-tuple ko" problem appears to be an endgame position.
> on the NxN boards that is simply computationally too complex
> for all computers ever? See Tromp's paper on EXPTIME.
Have you forgotten the Subject: line here? Who plays
Go on arbitrarily large NxN boards? Would Go other than
size 19x19 be found -more- popular on every continent ?
Have you produced examples for us yet, of an endgame
position that cannot be scored correctly by -ANY- computer?
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned N. Korea launch unnerves Hawaii residents
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090621/D98V3T0O0.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
> Have you produced examples for us yet, of an endgame
> position that cannot be scored correctly by -ANY- computer?
Now that we know it should be 19x19 and positionally close to the end
of the game, I guess that (so far) I cannot produce examples. An
undecidable problem would require rules tricks rather than a
convincing position. A tactically too complex position is not
constructed easily if the implementation may use every AI insight
available. Maybe the "most difficult Go problem ever" (the thing with
a huge hane-seki) qualifies? Or - under some superko - a position with
as many molasses kos as you can fit onto the 19x19? (The related
theory has not been solved yet.) Or some other combination of many ko
shapes that interact more than creating a mere 2^N decision complexity
(e.g., 2^40 for 40 basic kos could still be solved by brute force)? I
doubt though that an ordinary life and death problem from a classical
problem collection would qualify - programs can just calculate long
enough using some good AI to restrict the computational time
complexity.
-
> jazze...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> Have you produced examples for us yet, of an endgame
>> position that cannot be scored correctly by -ANY- computer?
"Robert Jasiek" <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> Now that we know it should be 19x19
I don't know that it should be 19x19. I am observing that
formal Go is more often played on 19x19 than any other size,
on all of the continents surveyed. This was a proposal being
sent up for the Olympic Committee, IGF, and IMSA, correct ?
There could also be some mathematical analysis on why Go
would be played on boardsizes other than 19x19, as well as
mathematical analysis for why 19x19 was chosen by tradition.
> ... and positionally close to the end of the game,
I don't suppose that a scoring dispute occurs unless
the position is close to the end of the game.
> I guess that (so far) I cannot produce examples.
Well that's nice: all of the problems you might pose can
be solved by yourself. So we shall expect their solutions, too.
> An undecidable problem would require rules tricks rather than a
> a convincing position. A tactically too complex position is not
> constructed easily if the implementation may use every AI insight
> available. Maybe the "most difficult Go problem ever" (the thing with
> a huge hane-seki) qualifies? Or - under some superko - a position
> with as many molasses kos as you can fit onto the 19x19? (The related
> theory has not been solved yet.) Or some other combination of many
> ko shapes that interact more than creating a mere 2^N decision
> complexity (e.g., 2^40 for 40 basic kos could still be solved by
> brute force)? I doubt though that an ordinary life and death problem
> from a classical problem collection would qualify - programs can
> just calculate long enough using some good AI to restrict the
> computational time complexity.
Scoring situations are greatly simplified by applying the
"hypothetical play" convention where no ko may be recaptured.
You suggested that this was not merely Japanese so there is
perhaps some popular precedent for its use on every continent.
Was there an economic advantage to obsession with insolubles?
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------
The EU Rip-Off
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=7364
----------------------------------------------------------------
marc
> As Martin Stiassny reports in DGoZ 2/2009 on page 3, now there is some
> clarification about the conditions to become a member of the
> International Mind Sports Federation (so far only Western Chess,
> Bridge, Go, Checkers):
>
> 1) The game's international federation is GAISF member,
> 2) the game is spread world-wide, and
> 3) it is a game of knowledge.
...
> So let us guess: Which might be the next likely IMSA members? Xianqi,
> Othello, Shogi, mathematical number games? Games specific to a
> particular continent like Awale may have much harder times, I would
> guess. All those countless wargames, German games, and computer games
> would fail for at least one of the conditions, it seems.
If IMSA expects to be a representative of real mind games, it should
not let wari - awale not to be amongst its members. it is played all
around the world, not only in africa. i.e. antillan islands, middle-
east / hindustan, europe, probably USA? there is (was?) a quite well
organized association in the UK, called the oware society. wari is one
of the games of the mancala family of games, perhaps the most
internationally widespread. there are dozens of (small) local
variations on the rules, but the wari ones are supposed to be an
international standard.
i can help contacting these people if required. it is nice to have
"games" people work together.
in Barcelona and Catalonia there have probably been sold tenths of
thousands (30,000 - 60,000) of wari game sets sold in the last 15
years, which is much more than go, perhaps just a few thousands
(<5,000). however, there is no serious gaming scene, let alone clubs
with regular meeting times or frequent tournaments. a real pity.
i have to say, wari is the only game i like to play besides go.
Robert Jasiek
wrote:
>> 1) The game's international federation is GAISF member,
>If IMSA expects to be a representative of real mind games, it should
>not let wari - awale not to be amongst its members.
Indeed, although I have no good knowledge about world-wide spreading,
except for what you have just described. It must become GAISF member
first though. To achieve that, there should be an international
federation of the national Awale associations. Does it exist? How many
nations are represented?
>i can help contacting these people if required.
>it is nice to have "games" people work together.
Yes. For example, it was a delight to meet players of the other games
at the World Mind Sports Games.
marc
On 27 Juny, 19:31, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:23:50 -0700 (PDT), marc <carni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> 1) The game's international federation is GAISF member,
>
> http://www.agfisonline.com/
>
> >If IMSA expects to be a representative of real mind games, it should
> >not let wari - awale not to be amongst its members.
>
> Indeed, although I have no good knowledge about world-wide spreading,
> except for what you have just described. It must become GAISF member
> first though. To achieve that, there should be an international
> federation of the national Awale associations. Does it exist? How many
> nations are represented?
i don't have up-to-date information about this. last time i checked
only the already mentioned UK-based oware society, which is more like
an educational association, and not a sports federation. in catalonia,
the guys used to have a kinda "hippie - anarchist" philosophy, and
refused to spend time in organizational - federation issues. a pity,
since they have done a huge and excellent task in raising the
awareness of the game.
IIRC, there used to be a world championship (somehow inspired by the
WAGC), which was held some times on some antillan islands, but usually
in european countries. i don't know if the world championship was
organized by some world-wide organization or by the oware society
itself.
please don't take my words as being strictly true, i am writing what i
remember or i think i remember. please refer to this on my previous
post :
> >i can help contacting these people if required.
> http://www.imsaworld.com/
>
> >it is nice to have "games" people work together.
>
> Yes. For example, it was a delight to meet players of the other games
> at the World Mind Sports Games.
there used to be such great gatherings in the "festival des jeux" in
cannes, france. there usually were french go players and tournaments
run there, sometimes the EYGC was held during these days (i was there
twice because of that). yasuda and shigeno were there once.
marc
http://www.oware.org (UK)
http://www.manqala.org (Catalonia)
i've done a fast browsing of their sites, and as i said, they appear
to be currently active, and not to be organized as sports federation
but as educational / cultural / social associations.
On 28 Juny, 12:07, marc <carni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,