Where has everyone gone?
Alan Cameron
Where has everyone gone?
T Mark Hall
<alan.c...@iname.com> writes
>
>Where has everyone gone?
>
>
GoDiscussions.com.
--
T Mark Hall
Honorary Vice-President, British Go Association
http://www.gogod.demon.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.gogod.demon.co.uk/NewInGo/NewInGo.htm
Alan Cameron
Frank?
"T Mark Hall" <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
T Mark Hall
<alan.c...@iname.com> writes
What we get is far more rational and reasonable discussions about Go
which do not descend into the crazy flame-wars seen here and, as far as
I have seen, very little of the off-topic rubbish originating from one
of the resident trolls here.
Best wishes.
-
I see. So why is "everyone" still here on rec.games.go ?
>> "T Mark Hall" <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> GoDiscussions.com.
That -IS- spelled "GoD is cussions" ? Seems religious, eh?
> Alan Cameron <alan.c...@iname.com> writes
>> Oooh. Does that mean we get the usual stuff there instead of here,
>> including Frank?
Apparently, a user from the "entertain me with U.K. TV" generation ?
T Mark Hall <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Since it is a moderated site, we get very little of the "usual stuff".
> What we get is far more rational and reasonable discussions about
> Go which do not descend into the crazy flame-wars seen here and,
> as far as I have seen, very little of the off-topic rubbish originating
> from one of the resident trolls here.
Despite having a nice website, it's difficult to understand the trashy
quality of what T Mark Hall (and Alan Cameron) decide to post here.
Could they perhaps each supply examples of what they'd like to see?
At the least, they might cut-and-paste and some echo of faves & raves.
No surprise that, in Great Britain, they're -unable- to communicate....
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Owns Britain (Paperback) -- by Kevin M. Cahill
Reviewer: William Podmore (London United Kingdom)
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Britain-Kevin-Cahill/dp/1841953105/ref=sr_1_1/102-8514369-2104924?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175619529&sr=1-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
<tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> GoDiscussions.com.
>What we get is far more rational and reasonable discussions about Go
Apart from the usual weaknesses of web forums (splitting of the go
community into many forum communities; no easy saving of contents to
one's local PC; nasty prescribed structure of topic categories one
would prefer to structure differently; awful GUI), godiscussions.com
lacks high level contents about go theory, not to mention research.
--
robert jasiek
Frank de Groot
> Apart from the usual weaknesses of web forums (splitting of the go
> community into many forum communities; no easy saving of contents to
> one's local PC; nasty prescribed structure of topic categories one
> would prefer to structure differently; awful GUI), godiscussions.com
> lacks high level contents about go theory, not to mention research.
I would start participating in a comp.go forum if there was one - the
mailing list format is more than atrocious.
BIG Fan of North Korea
Banner lifted and it said "godiscussions.com is for the nanny and babies"...dirt
disgusting, yuck, pui, pui. I learn more here in rgg than there and I'm free to
"kick" some butts.
Robert Jasiek
<Nothing...@Shit.com> wrote:
>>godiscussions.com
>> lacks high level contents about go theory, not to mention research.
>Banner lifted and it said "godiscussions.com is for the nanny and babies"...dirt
>disgusting, yuck, pui, pui. I learn more here in rgg than there and I'm free to
>"kick" some butts.
Maybe you convince us that godiscussions.com has high level contents
about go theory or research, which I would have overlooked so far?
--
robert jasiek
BIG Fan of North Korea
If there were dump sites in the real-world then there is information recycling
centre at godiscussions.com. Smell the stench?
Robert, if I have something on go theory or doing some heavy research and I'm
kindred in sharing spirit then I'd setup a dedicated forum just for it...merited
by traffic, controversy and significance of course. :-) It's better to isolate
the issue from mainstream forums and put it under your own and appointed panel's
control.
But for now, it's all game, game, more games and "kick" some butts. LOL
Robert Jasiek
<Nothing...@Shit.com> wrote:
>if I have something on go theory or doing some heavy research and I'm
>kindred in sharing spirit then I'd setup a dedicated forum just for it...merited
>by traffic, controversy and significance of course. :-) It's better to isolate
>the issue from mainstream forums
At godiscussions, I do not see significant amounts of go theory in the
meaning of high dan analysis of strategy / tactics. Even the
(specialized by language) German go forum website and the
everybody-may-spoil-everything-of-value Sensei's Library are better
there. godiscussions feels more like kyu players' chat. This is of
value in itself for those that like it (or happen to be kyu players)
but otherwise it is not a reason to leave RGG.
That currently everybody is silent on RGG or has left may have
different causes: The annoyance by a currently high rate of flames or
spam, the alternative Sensei's Library, and the alternative
godiscussions. Nothing has changed, however, about the generally low
number of constantly active RGG posters (including those just posing
interesting questions). Too many lack the courage or do not meet
reasonable minimal standards of diagram formatting or of motivating
answers by coming to the point.
--
robert jasiek
BIG Fan of North Korea
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:56:01 +0800, "BIG Fan of North Korea"
> <Nothing...@Shit.com> wrote:
>> if I have something on go theory or doing some heavy research and I'm
>> kindred in sharing spirit then I'd setup a dedicated forum just for
>> it...merited by traffic, controversy and significance of course. :-) It's
>> better to isolate the issue from mainstream forums
>
> At godiscussions, I do not see significant amounts of go theory in the
> meaning of high dan analysis of strategy / tactics. Even the
> (specialized by language) German go forum website and the
> everybody-may-spoil-everything-of-value Sensei's Library are better
> there. godiscussions feels more like kyu players' chat. This is of
> value in itself for those that like it (or happen to be kyu players)
> but otherwise it is not a reason to leave RGG.
I'm not rated (most probably double-digit kyu who care) but I learned a lot here
in RGG...may not be in shortest time but I enjoyed the dialogues in any case. I
doubt if I ever could obtain similar quality in go knowledge disseminated from
godiscussions.com.
Staying in tune with RGG and playing (or studying) go suite me just perfect.
>
> That currently everybody is silent on RGG or has left may have
> different causes: The annoyance by a currently high rate of flames or
> spam, the alternative Sensei's Library, and the alternative
> godiscussions. Nothing has changed, however, about the generally low
> number of constantly active RGG posters (including those just posing
> interesting questions). Too many lack the courage or do not meet
> reasonable minimal standards of diagram formatting or of motivating
> answers by coming to the point.
Why the dismay about the silent on RGG? The active posting by you and others in
RGG have generated enough information depository for those self initialed to
find their own answer. Coupled with sites like Sensei and Gobase would
definitely keep these go-worms busy and quiet.
There's a proverb which said "silent is golden" treasure it...I heard the new
waves are in the horizon. :-)
Bantari
> ...lacks high level contents about go theory...
Then post some.
Either here or GD, I don't care.
Just not that awful hair-splitting stuff about rule quirks, pls. :)
____________
-Bantari
http://www.bantari.net/
Robert Jasiek
>> ...lacks high level contents about go theory...
>Then post some.
I have done so and will do again - but I don't do everything alone and
don't publish for free what I will publish in books.
--
robert jasiek
Roy Schmidt
You have been threatening to publish your go theory books for years. From
what you say, there should be at least enough material for "Volume 1" by
now.
Cheers, Roy
--
my reply-to address is gostoned at insightbb dot com
------
The Bradley Go Association meets every Wednesday evening at Kade's Coffee on
War Memorial Drive (opposite the Target/Cub Food/Lowe's/Best Buy center).
Robert Jasiek
<gost...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>From
>what you say, there should be at least enough material for "Volume 1" by
>now.
Sure.
--
robert jasiek
Bantari
> On 6 Apr 2007 11:07:34 -0700, "Bantari" <bant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> ...lacks high level contents about go theory...
> >Then post some.
>
> I have done so and will do again
I see.
I guess we have slightly different perception about what exactly is
"go theory".
> but I don't do everything alone and
> don't publish for free what I will publish in books.
Speaking of which... any indication about when these will be ready?
I keep hearing about your "books" for years, but as far have seen
nothing published.
When you finally do, you can safely count me among your customers.
By the way - your pages need updating. When I checked them out
recently, you had so many links out of date it was scary. Need some
help with that? Seriously.
______________
-Bantari
http://www.bantari.net/
-
"Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I guess we have slightly different perception about what exactly is
> "go theory".
Care to have a discussion about this? What does "Bantari"
say "go theory" is? Obviously, I forgot to cite "Bantari's" webpage.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUNK FOOD INDUSTRY APPLAUDES ITSELF FOR YEARS
OF "ETHICAL" ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4680.cfm
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jasiek
>I guess we have slightly different perception about what exactly is
>"go theory".
"go theory" can mean different things: a) usual analysis of strategy
or tactics, b) abstract, formal theory close to or being research.
>>what I will publish in books.
>Speaking of which... any indication about when these will be ready?
Last autumn I made another attempt to write on them significantly
again. Then it has turned out that writing tournament rules for the
EGF has become so overdue that I am doing this now before. Afterwards,
continuing to write my books has a high priority. One topic is
semeais. I am doing research for it that while writing the related
books and this is taking some time. My estimate is that the pure,
constant research on that topic requires some months alone. Add to
that the actual writing plus editing of a multi-volume book, and you
come close to a rough time schedule.
>I keep hearing about your "books" for years, but as far have seen
>nothing published.
Except for excerpts about rules, of course:)
>By the way - your pages need updating. When I checked them out
>recently, you had so many links out of date it was scary. Need some
>help with that?
Yes, many thanks for your offer! You might make a list of outdated
links ordered by page (including the outdated @berlin. in my email
email address) and tell me your suggestion by email. I would then
correct and upload, however, not before May 20 because writing the EGF
tournament rules does have priority these days. BTW, also some
spelling and other editing mistakes in my webpages need updating, and
I do not have time for that either. Did you notice that my J1989
commentary misses an entire table of diagrams...?
--
robert jasiek
Robert Jasiek
> Care to have a discussion about this?
What is your opinion about
http://senseis.xmp.net/?GoTheory
?
--
robert jasiek
Bantari
> On 7 Apr 2007 20:23:41 -0700, "Bantari" <bant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >By the way - your pages need updating. When I checked them out
> >recently, you had so many links out of date it was scary. Need some
> >help with that?
>
> Yes, many thanks for your offer! You might make a list of outdated
> links ordered by page (including the outdated @berlin. in my email
> email address) and tell me your suggestion by email. I would then
> correct and upload, however, not before May 20 because writing the EGF
> tournament rules does have priority these days.
Send me an zipped archive of your site, and I see what I can do once I
get some time. However, just do it whan you have a time to actually
fix it (after May.20?) - it would be a pity if I went into the trouble
of doing thework only for the pages to go without update for another
11. :)
> BTW, also some
> spelling and other editing mistakes in my webpages need updating, and
> I do not have time for that either. Did you notice that my J1989
> commentary misses an entire table of diagrams...?
Spelling mistakes? You are joking, right? :)
In 99% of the cases finding them takes less time than fixing them -
just copy/paste the text into your faborite word processor.
_______________
-Bantari
http://www.bantari.net/
-
Though Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> replied:
> What is your opinion about http://senseis.xmp.net/?GoTheory ?
Sorry, I don't have a very high opinion about "opinion." :-)
I don't suppose that the topic is very well served with "opinion."
Nevertheless, owing to the game's complexity we have settled
for "opinion" (having no other recourse). In turn, those who are
somewhat enjoying of discussions involving "opinion" gravitated
around Go Game Discussions. If we spoke of a game more easily
analyzed then "opinion" might not be quite so much a factor, and
then the people who contribute to such discussions might not be
opinionated people.
I think that, in the not so distant future, we will be able to pose
a Go Position to the computer and allow the computer to crunch
on that posision for a great deal of time and then arrive at a more
authoritative assessment concerning the next "best move." It is not
going to be necessary, even in most cases, to read out sequences
all the way to an end-game condition in order to find the "best move."
Most players have strong points and weak points. Even strong
players can make moves that are not thoroughly great, perhaps due
to time pressure. The outcome of a game is usually the result of that
player who made less errors. This is a normal description of "Theory."
The game is made "great" more so by its winner than by its loser.
I don't suppose that my way of approaching the topic of "theory"
w/r/t Go comports to the character of that webpage. Most players of
Go do not arrive with a lot of strong opinions concerning "Go Theory"
so I conclude that its subject matter is somewhat outside a mainstream.
Philosophically I think it is a serious problem to confuse much knowledge
with "wisdom." The nature of "knowledge" is not necessarily a Good, as
when people have "knowledge" of stupid things rather than smart stuff.
The presumption that people who collectively pool their "knowledge"
will realize "wisdom" by such means, is not necessarily borne out by
factual experience. Democracy, for example, is not usually a very good
way of determining truth, or a wise course of action. Democracy simply
registers a likely path where people might not be disgruntled and then
tends to reduce the amount of potential upset, or riled up feelings, and
then tends to minimize the probability of revolution and social upheaval.
Yet it is also possible that human character might better be shaped by
circumstances of revolution and social upheaval. Eliminating these from
human experience, over a lenghthy period of time, might soften society
to the point where they become complacent and apathetic, and do not
participate in their own governance. Paradoxically, the democracy that
earlier generations had regarded as a bequeathed legacy becomes in
the hands of its descendants a tool for lullaby, mass exploitation, and
manipulation. Politicians are again a designated "class" when relatives
and descendants of politicians are granted special privilege in election.
This digression was merely by example of how "knowledge" is not only
something Good but can be misinterpreted, misapplied and mistaken.
The Bible speaks of "knowledge" as something which can lead to "much
sorrow" so instead advises its readers instead to seek after "wisdom."
The arrival at "wisdom" usually asks for a means other than by mere
"knowledge." Wisdom is an aspect too often appreciated by retrospect
(afterwards, too late) rather than by anticipatory prescience. Thinking
of "go wisdom" as "the total go knowledge of all go players" ignores the
future of Go. Actual wisdom would not be blind to the future.
The second characterization, "traditional go theory is the informal
practical science of professional or amateur go players" the scope has
been widened to include "amateur go players." This is a convenience on
account of those who contribute to the webpages because professionals
probably cannot afford to siphon off their time and resources to update
webpages. In practice the "traditional go theory" has involved a Sensei
who is the expert professional in a community, or a whole lot of them,
where amateurs defer to those Sensei people for "traditional go theory."
You could speak of modern Go Theory as something involving amateurs
with computers & publication schemes, yet that would not be traditional.
For thirds, reader are presented with "scientific go theory is the
formal theoretical science of studying go as parts of other scientific
fields." From the outset that definition presumes a superset/subset
relationship among "other scientific fields" & "science of studying go."
It is not altogether clear whether "other scientific fields" can tell us
MORE about "science of studying go" versus "science of studying go"
can tell us MORE about "other scientific fields." Why should we not
say "science of studying go is the formal theoretical science of other
scientific fields as parts of studying go" ? Must it be some orientation
for "external/internal" in such conceptions of "science" which leads
one to proceed, one direction to the other, rather than conversely?
Here's an example: A126972 in Sloane's Integer Sequences,
given properly as 1+combi(n+1,3) , describing the number of states
for entropy^2 measures in an arbitrary permutation list on `n' numbers.
These count the categories for (pi(n)-n)^2 , for n-->oo. The sequence
exhibits curious properties -- maybe occurs for many of the cubics --
when examining integer divisibility: if (p|w) denotes probability that
1+combi(n+1,3) is divisible by w, then (p|2) = (p|3) = 2*(p|5) = 3*(p|7)
= 5/3*(p|11) = 6*(p|13) = 8/3*(p|17) = 3*(p|19) = 11*(p|23) = 14*(p|29)
= 15*(p|31) = 18*(p|37) = 20/3*(p|41) = 7*(p|43) = 23*(p|47) = 26*(p|53)
= 29/3*(p|59) = 30*(p|61) = 11*(p|67) = 35*(p|71) = 12*(p|73) ... etc.
In other words, multiplying coefficient entries by 3 yields an integral
relation among all of the division probabilities, at least until reaching
23*(p|139) after which preliminary trials appear to break into sixths.
This generates some congruences; those particularly eye-catching
are (p|2)=(p|3) , (p|7)=(p|19) , (p|23)=(p|67) , (p|47)=(p|139) ,unique
for (p|5), (p|11), (p|13), (p|17), (p|29), (p|31), (p|37), (p|41), (p|43)
and so forth, bit strange and unexpected in the qualities of cubics.
I found identical probability coefficients in pairs, but not for triads.
In the eye-catching congruences, the first of pair runs 2, 7, 23, 47 ...
while the second runs 3, 19, 67, 139 ... ("meaning" not yet assigned).
Most Go Players recognize the significance of the `2' and `3'
breakout: when chasing a ladder correctly the escaper is left with
only 2 liberties which are then pressed again into _atari_ by ladder
motion. If the ladder is played incorrectly (an exercise with beginners)
then the escaper obtains 3 liberties and is defeating the ladder efforts.
By analogy, 7 dumpling points still suffices for Go life while number of
7-permutation categories (pi(7)-7)^2 = 1+combi(1+7,3) = 57 = 3*19, so
in theory there are 19 ways in which 2 consecutive plays destroy life.
A set of dumpling points is defined as a grouping with liberties which
would have highest dangosity if occupied only by stones of either color.
Dangosity was defined as the ratio of stones to liberties in the group.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flu viruses may be developing drug resistance
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070403/flu_resistance_070403/20070403?hub=Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
marc gonzalez-carnicer
and their fodders seem to have upset most writers
and therefore their readers.
in the meantime, the remaining readers of rgg may
like to know that the paris egf tour finals are quite
exciting. at round 4, cho seokbin is even with 4/4 with
an unknown (?) japanese 9d named nakano, after
having defeated fan hui. follow closely with 3 wins
mero, burzo, balogh, kuin and noguchi.
results can be followed at
http://paris2007.jeudego.org/result.php, and
perhaps live at some server
Alan Cameron ha escrit:
> Where has everyone gone?
Bantari
> Care to have a discussion about this? What does "Bantari"
> say "go theory" is? Obviously, I forgot to cite "Bantari's" webpage.
Can't resist a jab, can you? :)
Well, there is precious little about Go Theory on my page, since its
primarily targeted at absolute beginners and thus contains hardly more
then the very basics to get a person started playing on a 9x9 board.
As for Go Theory... The point is, I am not really sure what it is.
I read the page on Sensei's, but I am not sure if I find it very
convincing.
I guess, I think of a Go theory as being a parallel of the Chess
theory - which, to me, is *general* principles and discussions about
using well-defined strategic elements of Go (shape, thickness,
influence, aji, etc)
I do not remember seeing much of such discussions on rgg (neither have
I seen it on GD). There sure were discussions of concrete positions
and even games, but this is slightly different from discussion of
general theory as I defined it.
On a similar note, I find a discussion of joseki or fuseki as not
being a part of "Go Theory" as I see it, although these discussion can
also be "theoretical". In some cases, when such discussions center
around clear strategic elements, and when they are general enough,
they may also fall under the label of "Go Theory Discussions". But in
most cases they concentrate more on "play like that to gain advantage"
or "this move gives better result" kind of ideas.
However, as I said, the idea of "Go Theory" is not very clear to me,
and I guess it is possible that others would define it differently. I
will bow to their wisdom when they present a convincing, and better,
definition.
______________
-Bantari
http://www.bantari.net/
Harry Sigerson
> If we spoke of a game more easily
> analyzed then "opinion" might not be quite so much a factor, and
> then the people who contribute to such discussions might not be
> opinionated people.
>
Isn't that the reverse of what has to be the case? {Though you may
be having chuckle that swings on the 'opinionated' part and I've missed
the laugh.}
If the game, any game, is more easily analysed, then isn't it
likely that that game's Rules are sufficiently comprehensive,
completed, finalised; that opinion would not come into it.
While any such for which there were varicose sets of disputed
rules would engender lots of opinion, necessarily. That is unless
thinking among enough players did not see any need for a unified set of
rules - the very essence of opinion.
Now, real-time on-line internet Go sees the need for a finalised
set - or finalised sets - of rules for each of the different 'national'
(for lack of a better word) games. It would appear to have that needs
the mulch of opinion.
It's not too good an analogy but go back some hundred of years in
this small country of the UK there was a time when villages more than a
day's walking distance apart would develop a completely different local
accent; to the point where they were almost different languages. If you
define language as a tool to let you be understood by others.
Now the way things are going there will eventually be so much
tarmac or as it is called in the US, asphaltic-concrete, that instead
of going along a motorway all you'll need to do is drive normal to its
centreline and, still with asphalt under your wheels, go where you want
to go. Walking could become a life-threatening hobby - or is it that
already?
Harry.
Harry Sigerson
<carn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> results can be followed at
> http://paris2007.jeudego.org/result.php, and
> perhaps live at some server
>
I am puzzled about one element of the results table.
Using player #261 as an example.
He is listed as Coinaud Kaloyeau and in the Round 4 column has
*279+w2* written there in bold.
I read that as his having played player #279, that he won,
playing white, which is fine. I don't know what the final #2 means.
In much the most cases that final digit position has a zero '0' in
place and towards the foot of the large results table, a few have a
'1' or a '2'.
TIA.
Harry.
marc gonzalez-carnicer
position of the lower macmahon bar, it may well be
the number of handicap stones
Harry Sigerson ha escrit:
-
"Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I guess, I think of a Go theory as being a parallel of the Chess
> theory - which, to me, is *general* principles and discussions
> about using well-defined strategic elements of Go (shape,
> thickness, influence, aji, etc)
Because you characterize those terms as "well-defined" then
what, more specifically, is your "well-defined" comprehension?
Could I describe, what you are about to say, to a dumb computer?
I find the remainder of your posting intractable: you consider that
"a discussion of joseki or fuseki" might not be part of "Go Theory"
and it is not clear from your text that such discussion will become
"theoretical" once focused upon the question of whether this shall
lead to a winning position. You indicate a willingness to "bow to
their wisdom" if others "present a ... better definition" though you
are still unclear how/what you wish to imply via that adverb "better."
----------------------------------------------
"Harry Sigerson" <harrys...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> If the game, any game, is more easily analysed, then isn't it
> likely that that game's Rules are sufficiently comprehensive,
> completed, finalised; that opinion would not come into it.
Analytical difficulty can result from complex rules which take
time to sift through and puzzle over, however analytical difficulty
can also be a result of simple rules demanding of implementation
skills. For example, a game where one walks about on fingertips
is easily talked about but not easily played: an analytical difficulty.
> While any such for which there were varicose sets of disputed
> rules would engender lots of opinion, necessarily. That is unless
> thinking among enough players did not see any need for a unified
> set of rules - the very essence of opinion.
Well, you're saying that if they opt to have no (strong) opinion
then they still express some sort of opinion? The lack of utterance
is nevertheless an utterance?
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/%7Ewwu/riddles/cs.shtml
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/%7Ewwu/riddles/hard.shtml
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/%7Ewwu/riddles/medium.shtml
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bantari
> "Bantari" <bant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I guess, I think of a Go theory as being a parallel of the Chess
> > theory - which, to me, is *general* principles and discussions
> > about using well-defined strategic elements of Go (shape,
> > thickness, influence, aji, etc)
>
> Because you characterize those terms as "well-defined" then
> what, more specifically, is your "well-defined" comprehension?
OT.
My comprehension (or lack thereof) of any strategic elements does not
influence the idea that general discussion of such elements can is
what I would considered a discussion about Go Theory. Maybe even the
discussion about the "meaning" of such elements would qualify.
> Could I describe, what you are about to say, to a dumb computer?
Strange question, and OT.
But, out of curiosity - could you?
I am not really sure what you could do and what you could not do, I
don't really know you that well.
> I find the remainder of your posting intractable: you consider that
> "a discussion of joseki or fuseki" might not be part of "Go Theory"
> and it is not clear from your text that such discussion will become
> "theoretical" once focused upon the question of whether this shall
> lead to a winning position.
Consider a simple algorithm:
1. Read what I wrote again.
2. Think about it and try to understand what it says.
3. Repeat until successful.
4. Then (and only then) post a response.
As a matter of fact, consider the above algorithm with respect to a
lot of stuff you answer to.
It will improve your communication skills, trust me.
No offense intended.
> You indicate a willingness to "bow to
> their wisdom" if others "present a ... better definition" though you
> are still unclear how/what you wish to imply via that adverb "better."
It is unclear what you mean by "unclear". :)
It is also unclear if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing or
if you actually have a point to make here. Still, I will indulge you
for a moment, see where it leads us.
"Better" certainly depends on the arguments they present in support of
their definition. If the arguments are convincing to me, I would
classify their definition "better", since I did not present any
arguments in support of mine. And the arguments I do have are not
very strong, even in my personal opinion. As I said, the issue is not
very solid for me at the moment. And not really very important,
either. For the moment. This is why I usually refrain from entering
such discussions. Something for you to learn from? :)
Another good indication of a definition being "better" is its
practical use, if any.
_____________
-Bantari
http://www.bantari.net/
-
>> "Bantari" <bant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I guess, I think of a Go theory as being a parallel of the Chess
>>> theory - which, to me, is *general* principles and discussions
>>> about using well-defined strategic elements of Go (shape,
>>> thickness, influence, aji, etc)
> jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> Because you characterize those terms as "well-defined" then
>> what, more specifically, is your "well-defined" comprehension?
"Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My comprehension (or lack thereof) of any strategic elements does
> not influence the idea that general discussion of such elements can is
> what I would considered a discussion about Go Theory. Maybe even
> the discussion about the "meaning" of such elements would qualify.
Shall I conclude that you -absent- yourself from any participation
in some positive meaningful contribution to Go Theory discussions?
>> Could I describe, what you are about to say, to a dumb computer?
> Strange question, and OT.
> But, out of curiosity - could you?
> I am not really sure what you could do and what you could not do,
> I don't really know you that well.
Could -somebody- describe your characterizations to a dumb computer?
>> I find the remainder of your posting intractable: you consider that
>> "a discussion of joseki or fuseki" might not be part of "Go Theory"
>> and it is not clear from your text that such discussion will become
>> "theoretical" once focused upon the question of whether this shall
>> lead to a winning position.
> Consider a simple algorithm:
> 1. Read what I wrote again.
> 2. Think about it and try to understand what it says.
> 3. Repeat until successful.
> 4. Then (and only then) post a response.
>
> As a matter of fact, consider the above algorithm with respect to a
> lot of stuff you answer to.
I wrote a simple text interpreter routine to scan your posting
ten million times, yet incremental benefits from additional readings
did not justify further expenditure of electrical power consumption.
> It will improve your communication skills, trust me.
> No offense intended.
My communication skills are just fine. I play Go, after all ...
>> You indicate a willingness to "bow to
>> their wisdom" if others "present a ... better definition" though you
>> are still unclear how/what you wish to imply via that adverb "better."
> It is unclear what you mean by "unclear". :)
> It is also unclear if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing or
> if you actually have a point to make here. Still, I will indulge you
> for a moment, see where it leads us.
>
> "Better" certainly depends on the arguments they present in support
> of their definition. If the arguments are convincing to me, I would
> classify their definition "better", since I did not present any
> arguments in support of mine. And the arguments I do have are
> not very strong, even in my personal opinion. As I said, the issue is
> not very solid for me at the moment. And not really very important,
> either. For the moment. This is why I usually refrain from entering
> such discussions. Something for you to learn from? :)
>
> Another good indication of a definition being "better" is its
> practical use, if any.
I did not hear you reference the phrase "leads to a winning position."
I shall conclude, in the absense of that phrase, that you do not deploy
well-defined strategic elements.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------
Good Books for Children and Adults
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=280
--------------------------------------------------------
Harry Sigerson
<carn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> taking into account the rank difference and a likely
> position of the lower macmahon bar, it may well be
> the number of handicap stones
>
Of course.
Then that there are mostly zeros in that last position makes you
think they must have had a good pairing program.
I wonder if having such a big field of players helps in that
regard?
Harry.
marc gonzalez-carnicer
of course, having such a large number of players
makes it easy to have enough people to match
any player at any round. there is also the low bar,
above which (17k in this tournament?), all games
are played even.
having a good pairing program does not affect.
i wonder if there are any tournaments with more
people than this one, besides the EGC. 291. links?
Harry Sigerson ha escrit:
marc gonzalez-carnicer
wonder if he was invited or it's just that he was interested
to play.
http://gobase.org/information/players/?pp=Nakano%20Yasuhiro
marc gonzalez-carnicer ha escrit:
Bantari
> Shall I conclude that you -absent- yourself from any participation
> in some positive meaningful contribution to Go Theory discussions?
No.
Now, prove that what you say is in any way meanigful.
> Could -somebody- describe your characterizations to a dumb computer?
You mean you used the term without understanding it?
Tsk tsk tsk...
> I wrote a simple text interpreter routine to scan your posting
> ten million times, yet incremental benefits from additional readings
> did not justify further expenditure of electrical power consumption.
Maybe your "interpreter" is faulty?
I had that suspicion for years...
> My communication skills are just fine. I play Go, after all ...
Do you?
Sometimes I wonder...
> I did not hear you reference the phrase "leads to a winning position."
> I shall conclude, in the absense of that phrase, that you do not deploy
> well-defined strategic elements.
I herewith officially reference the phase "Leads to winning position."
There! Happy? :)
________________
-Bantari
http://www.bantari.net/
-
> jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> Shall I conclude that you -absent- yourself from any participation
>> in some positive meaningful contribution to Go Theory discussions?
"Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No.
"No" would seem inconsistent with your earlier statements:
>> "Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> My comprehension (or lack thereof) of any strategic
>>> elements does not influence the idea that general
>>> discussion of such elements can is what I would
>>> considered a discussion about Go Theory. Maybe
>>> even the discussion about the "meaning" of such
>>> elements would qualify.
> Now, prove that what you say is in any way meanigful.
Why bother with comparisons ? What would be the point ?
>> Could -somebody- describe your characterizations to a dumb computer?
> You mean you used the term without understanding it? Tsk tsk tsk...
You had stated:
>>"Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I am not really sure what you could do and what you could not do,
Is the question easier to answer when expanding its scope to "somebody"?
>> I wrote a simple text interpreter routine to scan your posting
>> ten million times, yet incremental benefits from additional readings
>> did not justify further expenditure of electrical power consumption.
> Maybe your "interpreter" is faulty? I had that suspicion for years...
When in doubt over the translation just "blame the `interpreter'", eh?
>> My communication skills are just fine. I play Go, after all ...
> Do you? Sometimes I wonder...
Ah, now I understand why you lack proper time management.
>> I did not hear you reference the phrase "leads to a winning position."
>> I shall conclude, in the absense of that phrase, that you do not deploy
>> well-defined strategic elements.
> I herewith officially reference the phase "Leads to winning position."
I see. With what shall that officially referenced phrase be associated?
> There! Happy? :)
Not about making me happy. Its about making adjudicators happy.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematicians Map E(8)
http://aimath.org/E8/
http://www.sagemath.org/sage.html
http://www.sagemath.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Sigerson
<carn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> there is also the low bar,
> above which (17k in this tournament?),
>
I had wondered to which level that had been set, thanks and yes
it was a big field of players.
Harry.
Harry Sigerson
<carn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> looks like the winner is an active pro, 8p. interesting, i
> wonder if he was invited or it's just that he was interested
> to play.
>
For a 30 year-old Go professional, possibly travelling in
Europe, the first prize would be handy rail fare <s>.
H.
Bantari
Fix your interpreter, maybe you'll understand what I said. :)
> > Now, prove that what you say is in any way meanigful.
> Why bother with comparisons ? What would be the point ?
I talk about a proof, you talk about comparison.
Apples, oranges, and the like.
> Is the question easier to answer when expanding its scope to "somebody"?
You're right. I misread your statement. Sorry.
So, to answer it - I don't know. Ask -somebody-. :)
> When in doubt over the translation just "blame the `interpreter'", eh?
Interpreters interpret. Translators translate.
Which one did you write?
If you wrote an "interpreter" to "translate", you wrote a wrong tool.
By the way - send me the code of your "interpreter", or post it here
if it is small, maybe we can figure the fault together. My off-hand
suspicion is that your "interpreter" missed one important step of my
algorithm - the one which prompts you to "Think about it and try to
understand what it says" (can your "interpreter" do that?) Just
mindlessly reading and re-reading something a million times does not
guarantee deeper levels of understanding.
_______________
-Bantari
http://www.bantari.net/
-
"Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fix your interpreter, maybe you'll understand what I said. :)
It's a poor expositor who blames the audience for miscomprehension.
Skilled craftsmen would not need to blame the tools for craftsmanship.
>>> Now, prove that what you say is in any way meanigful.
>> Why bother with comparisons ? What would be the point ?
> I talk about a proof, you talk about comparison.
> Apples, oranges, and the like.
I talk about your transparent efforts to turn the tables by shifting
an argument. We were discussing -YOUR- contributions to Go Theory.
My contributions, if any, ARE A -SEPARATE- TOPIC ENTIRELY ...
>> Is the question easier to answer when expanding its scope to "somebody"?
> You're right. I misread your statement. Sorry.
> So, to answer it - I don't know. Ask -somebody-. :)
Alrighty then. I asked somebody and did learn that your speech
utterance characterizations are not amenable for computer understanding.
Meaning that nothing yet has risen above your level of childishness.
>> When in doubt over the translation just "blame the `interpreter'", eh?
> Interpreters interpret. Translators translate.
> Which one did you write?
> If you wrote an "interpreter" to "translate", you wrote a wrong tool.
Interpretors can also translate and translators can also interpet.
Where have you been? You have a nice webpage about webpage
development tools yet it appears you have no comprehension of them.
> By the way - send me the code of your "interpreter", or post it here
> if it is small, maybe we can figure the fault together. My off-hand
> suspicion is that your "interpreter" missed one important step of my
> algorithm - the one which prompts you to "Think about it and try to
> understand what it says" (can your "interpreter" do that?) Just
> mindlessly reading and re-reading something a million times does
> not guarantee deeper levels of understanding.
Not really. You can find the important missing step in line (b):
(0) "Bantari Interpretor" -( project code 10 April 2007** )-
(1) line (a): Go to Line (b)
(2) line (b): "Think about it and try to understand what it says."
(3) line (c): Go to Line (b) but don't be "mindlessly reading and
(4) (i) \ re-reading something a million times."
(5) line (d): If you are at Line (d) then "guarantee a deeper
(6) (ii) \ level of understanding."
(7) line (e): verity that lines (a)-(e) are not "offhand suspicion."
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------
** Note that: 2 + 7 + 27 + 72 + 207 + 702 + 270 + 720 = 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bantari
> It's a poor expositor who blames the audience for miscomprehension.
> Skilled craftsmen would not need to blame the tools for craftsmanship.
It is a wise man who looks for answers first in the most obvious
places. :)
> We were discussing -YOUR- contributions to Go Theory.
No, we are not. Don't change the subject.
We are discussing the definition of Go Theory and what constitutes a
"discussion about Go theory"..
As far, you have provided no definitions of Go Theory, and no
indication of what *you* consider a discussion thereof. All you
provided was a negative comments about what I said without a single
constructive or creative input from yourself.
Honestly - if this continues, then I will have to once again assume
that you rather talk then think and rather make waves than present
solutions, and I will go back to ignoring you. But for now - I am
giving you a chance. Will you take it?
> My contributions, if any, ARE A -SEPARATE- TOPIC ENTIRELY ...
In the topic filed under "Jokes"? :)
> Alrighty then. I asked somebody and did learn that your speech
> utterance characterizations are not amenable for computer understanding.
Ok, then there you go.
A "dumb computer" cannot understand what I say.
You seem to imply that neither can you. Does it mean that "dumb
computer" and you are on the same mental level?
> Meaning that nothing yet has risen above your level of childishness.
You mean that your definition of "not childish" is that "dumb
computers" can understand it??
Lol.
>
> >> When in doubt over the translation just "blame the `interpreter'", eh?
> > Interpreters interpret. Translators translate.
> > Which one did you write?
> > If you wrote an "interpreter" to "translate", you wrote a wrong tool.
>
> Interpretors can also translate and translators can also interpet.
Not in the strict sense. There are translators build with capacity to
attempt to interpret, and there are interpreters build with the
capability to attempt to translate. Is that what you attempted to
write - an interpreter with the capability to attempt to translate?
Hmm... Send me the code, pls.
> Where have you been? You have a nice webpage about webpage
> development tools yet it appears you have no comprehension of them.
I do.
This is why I am a strong proponent of deploying the right tool for
the right task. When I want a good translation, I get a good
translator, not an interpreter with some weak capabilities to also
attempt to translate. And vice versa.
> (0) "Bantari Interpretor" -( project code 10 April 2007** )-
>
> (1) line (a): Go to Line (b)
> (2) line (b): "Think about it and try to understand what it says."
> (3) line (c): Go to Line (b) but don't be "mindlessly reading and
> (4) (i) \ re-reading something a million times."
> (5) line (d): If you are at Line (d) then "guarantee a deeper
> (6) (ii) \ level of understanding."
> (7) line (e): verity that lines (a)-(e) are not "offhand suspicion."
This is not a code.
This is, at best, a layman version of a pseudo code (far from being
strict and thus far away from being useful).
I asked for "CODE". Do you understand the word?
____________
-Bantari
http://www.bantari.net/
-
> jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> It's a poor expositor who blames the audience for miscomprehension.
>> Skilled craftsmen would not need to blame the tools for craftsmanship.
"Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is a wise man who looks for answers first in the most obvious
> places. :)
It's a fool who -finds- his answers in the most obvious places.
>> We were discussing -YOUR- contributions to Go Theory.
> No, we are not. Don't change the subject.
> We are discussing the definition of Go Theory and what constitutes
> a "discussion about Go theory"..
Yes, we are also discussing this, however in the subthread we
were subexmining "your (sub)comprehension," a subthread subtopic
I had subintroduced for subyourself, to clarify your subliminalizations.
>>>> "Bantari" <bant...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I guess, I think of a Go theory as being a parallel of the
>>>>> Chess theory - which, to me, is *general* principles
>>>>> and discussions about using well-defined strategic
>>>>> elements of Go (shape, thickness, influence, aji, etc)
>>> jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>>>> Because you characterize those terms as "well-defined"
>>>> then what, more specifically, is your "well-defined"
>>>> comprehension?
>> "Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> My comprehension (or lack thereof) of any strategic
>>> elements does not influence the idea that general
>>> discussion of such elements can is what I would
>>> considered a discussion about Go Theory. Maybe
>>> even the discussion about the "meaning" of such
>>> elements would qualify.
Aside from the grammatical/syntactical/semantic obfuscation,
which has been your standard fare, the point remains that getting
at the gist of your jest is the quix of the quest. "Discussion about
the "`meaning' of such elements" qualifies for ... what ?
> As far, you have provided no definitions of Go Theory, and no
> indication of what *you* consider a discussion thereof. All you
> provided was a negative comments about what I said without a
> single constructive or creative input from yourself.
I see: there's some Rule prohibiting any critical remarks, or
anything construed as negative? Why was that Rule an intrinsic
component of Go Theory? I thought that I supplied at least some
potential characterizations for my "Go Theory" in a post of 8 April:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/c345dbb246cf0037
Therein I observed:
[ 1 ]
"...owing to the game's complexity we have settled
for `opinion' (having no other recourse). In turn, those
who are somewhat enjoying of discussions involving
`opinion' gravitated around Go Game Discussions. "
[ 2 ]
"...we will be able to pose a Go Position to the computer
and allow the computer to crunch on that posision for a great
deal of time and then arrive at a more authoritative assessment
concerning the next `best move.' It is not going to be
necessary, even in most cases, to read out sequences all the
way to an end-game condition in order to find the `best move.'"
[ 3 ]
"Most players have strong points and weak points. Even
strong players can make moves that are not thoroughly great,
perhaps due to time pressure. The outcome of a game is
usually the result of that player who made less errors. This
is a normal description of `Theory.' The game is made
`great' more so by its winner than by its loser."
As points [ 4 ], [ 5 ], [ 6 ] I then took issue with characterizations
(a), (b), (c) on the Sensei's Library webpage URL (from Mr. Jasiek).
As example [ 7 ] for my departure [ 6 ] from third characterization (c),
I expounded somewhat on "A126972" of Sloane's Integer Sequences.
I believe that [ 1 ], above, can be commonly accepted as factual. As
for [ 2 ], while it may not seem factual today it will all in due time be
rendered factual tomorrow. And nobody has suggested that [ 3 ] is
anything but factual. I even identified, for your reading pleasure, a
textual marking in [ 3 ] where I wished to discuss an idea of `Theory.'
Following [1], [2], [3], with points [4], [5], [6], I then (reluctantly)
offered a few remarks which border upon, or dwell upon, opinion.
As this discussion proceeds perhaps some definitions may be
solidified. I prefer that definitions for "Go Theory" be the product
of a -research- Working Group rather than arrogant proclamations
of some highly opinionated individual, or even a group of individuals.
> Honestly - if this continues, then I will have to once again assume
> that you rather talk then think and rather make waves than present
> solutions, and I will go back to ignoring you. But for now - I am
> giving you a chance. Will you take it?
Thanks. I took it already. In a reply to Mr. Harry Sigerson I said:
[ 8 ]
"Analytical difficulty can result from complex rules which take
time to sift through and puzzle over, however analytical difficulty
can also be a result of simple rules demanding of implementation
skills. For example, a game where one walks about on fingertips
is easily talked about but not easily played: an analytical difficulty."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/2c3f9782d03306d5
>> My contributions, if any, ARE A -SEPARATE- TOPIC ENTIRELY ...
> In the topic filed under "Jokes"? :)
As they might say in Poland ... could you explain why that's funny ?
>> Alrighty then. I asked somebody and did learn that your speech
>> utterance characterizations are not amenable for computer understanding.
> Ok, then there you go.
> A "dumb computer" cannot understand what I say.
> You seem to imply that neither can you. Does it mean that "dumb
> computer" and you are on the same mental level?
If such implications meant that, then you would be applying the
fallacy of common parts, i.e. "because oragutans and humans each
have left hands then humans and oragutans must have the same
mental level."
>> Meaning that nothing yet has risen above your level of childishness.
> You mean that your definition of "not childish" is that "dumb
> computers" can understand it?? Lol.
Welcome to the world of parenting. Shall you review, one more time?
>>>> When in doubt over the translation just "blame the `interpreter'", eh?
>>> Interpreters interpret. Translators translate.
>>> Which one did you write?
>>> If you wrote an "interpreter" to "translate", you wrote a wrong tool.
>> Interpretors can also translate and translators can also interpet.
> Not in the strict sense. There are translators build with capacity
> to attempt to interpret, and there are interpreters build with the
> capability to attempt to translate. Is that what you attempted to
> write - an interpreter with the capability to attempt to translate?
> Hmm... Send me the code, pls.
You don't need to see the code once you review all arguments.
High-level translators need to conduct at least minor semantic analysis,
say most linguists who work in machine translation. Interpretors who
work at the United Nations may often need to translate, extensively.
>> Where have you been? You have a nice webpage about webpage
>> development tools yet it appears you have no comprehension of them.
> I do.
> This is why I am a strong proponent of deploying the right tool for
> the right task. When I want a good translation, I get a good
> translator, not an interpreter with some weak capabilities to also
> attempt to translate. And vice versa.
I see. What do you mean by "a good translator"? Systran Pro ?
>> (0) "Bantari Interpretor" -( project code 10 April 2007** )-
>> (1) line (a): Go to Line (b)
>> (2) line (b): "Think about it and try to understand what it says."
>> (3) line (c): Go to Line (b) but don't be "mindlessly reading and
>> (4) (i) \ re-reading something a million times."
>> (5) line (d): If you are at Line (d) then "guarantee a deeper
>> (6) (ii) \ level of understanding."
>> (7) line (e): verity that lines (a)-(e) are not "offhand suspicion."
> This is not a code.
Do not read such words at severe cost to your mental health.
> This is, at best, a layman version of a pseudo code (far
> from being strict and thus far away from being useful).
> I asked for "CODE". Do you understand the word?
I believe the term is English so I consulted with the OED:
=========== begin
code, n. -( Oxford English Dictionary )-
1. a. Rom. Law. One of the various systematic collections of
statutes made by later emperors, as the code of Theodosius,
of Justinian; spec. the latter.
b. A systematic collection or digest of the laws of a country,
or of those relating to a particular subject. (In modern
use, chiefly since the promulgation of the French Code Civile
or Code NapolＰn, in 1804.)
2. transf. a. A system or collection of rules or regulations on
any subject.
b. `A collection of receipts or prescriptions represented by
the Pharmacopia' (Syd. Soc. Lex.).
3. a. A system of military or naval signals.
b. Telegr. A system of words arbitrarily used for other words
or for phrases, tosecure brevity and secrecy; also attrib.,
as in code telegram, word.
c. Cybernetics. Any system of symbols and rules for expressing
information or instructions in a form usable by a computer
or other machine for processing or transmitting information.
d. Extended uses in Biol. and Linguistics.
4. A collection of writings forming a book, such as the Old or the
New Testament. Also, a recognized division of such forming a
volume. Obs.
5. attrib. and Comb. code-bearing, -breaking, -checking,
-switching; code-book, a list of letters or other expressions,
and of their correlates in a code, arranged as a key for
encoding and decoding; a book containing a code (in other
senses); code-language, a system of codes; code-name, a word
or symbol used as a substitute for the ordinary name of a thing
or person, for secrecy or convenience; also, one used to refer
to something that has no name; so code-name v.; similarly
code-number; code-script (see quots.).
ADDITIONS SERIES 1993
code, n.1
Add: [5.] code-breaker, one who solves or breaks a code; also,
a computer used for doing this; hence code-breaking.
DRAFT ADDITIONS DECEMBER 2004
code, n.1
code bloat Computing, unnecessary growth in the size of computer
software, esp. to unwieldy levels, usually as a result of
poor programming practices; (also) the bloated code itself.
=========== end
I assume that we are not referencing 1.a, 1.b, 2.b, 3.a, 3.b, or 4,
leaving as possibilities, 2.a, 3.c, 3.d, 5, 1993-addition, 2004-addition.
I then applied a MahJong A.I. Algorithm to mismatch any duplicates.
After defeating Vista's native Chess program a few times, at its highest
setting, I conducted a code review and removed some "code bloat."
Here's one stripped-down version for ya, (i.e. strppd-dwn vrsn fr y).
* Bntr ntrprtr (- prjct cde -)
1 > 2 Thnk bt t nd tr t ndrstnd wht t sys
3 <, ~(mndlssl rdng nd r-rdng smthng mlln tms)
5 grnt dpr lvl f ndrstndng 7 ## ~(ffhnd sspcn)
All line numbers have been rendered into recognizable primes.
I believe that I have satisfied your "CODE" requirements. Now you may
issue me a permit so that I can continue with demolition and rebuilding.
Though, if I keep digging into the "Bntr ntrprt" I might be digging where
there's only dirt.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Report: Bio-Weapons Could Be Used To Combat Overpopulation
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/090407bioweapons.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bantari
> Yes, we are also discussing this, however in the subthread we
> were subexmining "your (sub)comprehension," a subthread subtopic
> I had subintroduced for subyourself, to clarify your subliminalizations.
Well, Jeff... the rest of your sub-intelligent babble notwithstanding,
I have a strong feeling that this discussion leads to nowhere. One-
liners become paragraphs, paragraphs became pages, and soon you will
be writing books about nothing. I would be actually inclined to call
it a sub-discussion, since rather than narrowing the issue under
investigation to arrive at some kind of understanding, we keep
branching out in sub-optimal sub-threads, leaving the original sub-
topic in the dust.
So allow me to withdraw at this point and leave you pondering your sub-
arguments by yourself.
You have lost your sub-chance... yet again.
See ya.
_______________
-Bantari
http://www.bantari.net/
-
> jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> ...we were subexmining "your (sub)comprehension," a subthread subtopic
>> I had subintroduced for subyourself, to clarify your subliminalizations.
"Bantari" <ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, Jeff... the rest of your sub-intelligent babble notwithstanding,
> I have a strong feeling that this discussion leads to nowhere.
If it were not to lead nowhere, then where do you say it should lead?
> One-liners become paragraphs, paragraphs became pages, and soon
> you will be writing books about nothing.
Apparently you dislike the notion of zero and equations that equal zero.
> I would be actually inclined to call it a sub-discussion, since rather than
> narrowing the issue under investigation to arrive at some kind of
> understanding, we keep branching out in sub-optimal sub-threads,
> leaving the original sub-topic in the dust.
An understanding of what ? An "understanding" without discussions ?
> So allow me to withdraw at this point and leave you pondering your
> sub-arguments by yourself.
I had taken note of "Bantari's withdrawal tendencies, on 9 Apr '07:
"Shall I conclude that you -absent- yourself from any participation
in some positive meaningful contribution to Go Theory discussions?"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/dbc92f1e836bcefe
> You have lost your sub-chance... yet again.
Chance, or sub-chance, to do what ? One aspect of this was an effort
to describe elements of "Go Theory" to a dumb computer, perhaps a task
rendered impossible, from your perspective, by your withdrawal tendency.
Even "somebody" will not do it, once "Bantari" retreats to lurkerhood.
- regards
- jb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberating America From Israel ( Paul Findley )
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=288
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Olson
Seems sort of meta-
In a similar vein, I think a theory ought to explain something.
JustAnotherHomoSapiensSapiens
I think when people say something like go theory they really mean a
theory about how best to play go.
Some people may question even the existence of go, even with a goban
in front of them and an opponent on the other side of it bouncing
stones off their cranium. There's some hypothesis that go is older
than the current existing archeologicle evidence for it. Let's accept
that a theory is a mathematicle model of something that (for JB) could
someday be measured (maybe not yet) and could prediction, (not really
sure how usefull that is here.). Since regardless of rule set the
overall object is to surround the most empty intersections with the
fewest possible plays, then I hypothesize that a theory of Go would be
a number of sequences of plays representing each players which
maximizes that result, within the contraints (ruleset) being used, and
since there is no one rule set there is no one model, and there must a
number of competing models which are right when they apply to the
ruleset being used, and wrong at other times, there can't really be a
theory, or there can only be a limited theory, like Newton's gravity
vs General Relativity, unless your theory is the whole set of
mathematicle models that are correct when they apply, and the theory
involves picking the right model for the appropriate rule set. That's
as good as I can do so you'll have to go ask Charles Mathews.
I've babled long enough, time to pull the fish out of my ear.
-
>>>>> <alan.came...@iname.com> writes:
>>>>>>Where has everyone gone?
> jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> I see. So why is "everyone" still here on rec.games.go ?
Renli <usagi....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gating the chosen ones to the new community.
If they choose themselves, then they're not the chosen ones.
Curious, though, that you might reference some sect of people who
regard themselves as "more special" than any other sect of people.
Should Oliver now seek to appoint himself as their gatekeeper?
> Fascinatingly I have never felt the need to post on GoDiscussions-
> the conversations are all well constructed and the points valid, the
> discussions are soo good I sometimes feel like crying, and I never
> catch myself laughing at other people's pompous vagaries.
Perhaps Oliver's absense from GoDiscussions.Com explains its quality?
> An example:
>> Despite having a nice website, it's difficult to understand the trashy
>> quality of what T Mark Hall (and Alan Cameron) decide to post here.
>> Could they perhaps each supply examples of what they'd like to see?
>> At the least, they might cut-and-paste and some echo of faves & raves.
>> No surprise that, in Great Britain, they're -unable- to communicate....
> JB, of course, provides the model reason for why we need
> godiscussions.com. Most of what he says doesn't even make logical
> sense.
At which word, or letter, did that passage become not logical for Oliver?
> If you like JB, tweet, et. al's mindless rambling and vulgarities, by
> all means continue to stick around rec.games-go.
Ah, Oliver Richman's broad tar brush. Hardly in the pontillist
nature of Go... Shall we review?
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Letter to Oliver Richman
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/8260a8d68aae1eba
------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Go Sabotage Tricks?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/a159cae2e8f94d8a
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/bb3d35f140e0ad1d
------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: No Response from Renli ( was Re: glGo self-destructed )
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/949eddc12499a941
------------------------------------------------------------------
Foo Fa Raw
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/7d6ff63600162c04
------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitive Fu
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/c1a1ed74273a6982
------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Renli <usagi....@gmail.com> wrote:
> .... When I find myself bored i'll take a quick look.
Hmmm. It's about you. I don't suppose you'd want to cut any
corners there. In the meantime do you find that others are bored ?
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dangerous Futures
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=2#685
----------------------------------------------------------------