A Problem Race (1)
Robert Jasiek
I am a little bit lacking the time to do likewise. However,
I offer you a problem race: Each day I pose a new problem
until it becomes utterly obvious that you cannot catch up.
In each problem the komi is 0.5. The task is simply to
determine the territory score according to the Nihon Kiin
rules of 1989, which are the current Japanese rules.
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
# . . . . . . . .
Enjoy!
[Hint: area score = 80.5]
--
robert jasiek
http://www.snafu.de/~jasiek/rules.html
Simon Goss
>determine the territory score according to the Nihon Kiin
>rules of 1989, which are the current Japanese rules.
>
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
>. . . . . . . . .
># . . . . . . . .
>
>Enjoy!
>
>[Hint: area score = 80.5]
>
However, assuming this is true then the territory score is 79.5.
--
Simon
Nick Wedd
<si...@gosoft.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In each problem the komi is 0.5. The task is simply to
>>determine the territory score according to the Nihon Kiin
>>rules of 1989, which are the current Japanese rules.
>>
>>. . . . . . . . .
>>. . . . . . . . .
>>. . . . . . . . .
>>. . . . . . . . .
>>. . . . . . . . .
>>. . . . . . . . .
>>. . . . . . . . .
>>. . . . . . . . .
>># . . . . . . . .
>>
>>Enjoy!
>>
>>[Hint: area score = 80.5]
>>
>How do you make out that the area score is 80.5?
That is easy.
The empty points are all reachable from a black stone, and not reachable
from a white stone, so they belong to Black. There are 80 of them. The
black stone also belongs to Black. Total, 81 to Black, 0 to White.
Subtracting the komi, Black is winning by 80.5.
>However, assuming this is true then the territory score is 79.5.
I don't think that this follows.
With skillful play, the black stone can be killed. However while White
is killing it, Black will be able to put live stones elsewhere on the
board. The black stone therefore constitutes a "killable living string"
(I have the terminology wrong, but Robert is here to correct me). This
means that this position is already too difficult for me.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Barry Phease
> >>
> >>. . . . . . . . .
> >>. . . . . . . . .
> >>. . . . . . . . .
> >>. . . . . . . . .
> >>. . . . . . . . .
> >>. . . . . . . . .
> >>. . . . . . . . .
> >>. . . . . . . . .
> >># . . . . . . . .
> The empty points are all reachable from a black stone, and not reachable
> from a white stone, so they belong to Black. There are 80 of them. The
> black stone also belongs to Black. Total, 81 to Black, 0 to White.
> Subtracting the komi, Black is winning by 80.5.
>
> >However, assuming this is true then the territory score is 79.5.
>
> I don't think that this follows.
>
> With skillful play, the black stone can be killed. However while White
> is killing it, Black will be able to put live stones elsewhere on the
> board. The black stone therefore constitutes a "killable living string"
> (I have the terminology wrong, but Robert is here to correct me). This
> means that this position is already too difficult for me.
Sorry Nick, the black stone is dead as it can be killed. It is true
that black can play other stones while white is killing it but it is not
the killing of the black stone that allows these.
It is not a seki as there are no live stones to have liberties. Neither
side has any territory. Perhaps white wins by 1.5 as a result of the
dead stone. :)
--
Barry Phease
Mike Vaughn
> The task is simply to determine the territory score according to the Nihon
> Kiin rules of 1989, which are the current Japanese rules.
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> # . . . . . . . .
Not to be too pedantic, but how can you score an unfinished game? I do
not see any territory at all on this board.
--
Mike Vaughn | Imagination without Knowledge
Physics Department | Is pure Fantasy
Northeastern University | mtvaughn at neu dot edu
Vesa Laatikainen
> In each problem the komi is 0.5. The task is simply to
> determine the territory score according to the Nihon Kiin
> rules of 1989, which are the current Japanese rules.
>
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . .
> # . . . . . . . .
>
>
> [Hint: area score = 80.5]
If this is in any way related to the rules discussion, I feel that
the level is going down. Is the above example easy to explain to a
beginner? Did you use point-by-point counting for the area score?
Why, oh why there is this bloody 0.5 point komi?
Having written down that, I can enjoy my day...
Vesa
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Robert Jasiek
> that black can play other stones while white is killing it but it is not
> the killing of the black stone that allows these.
This is the best approach to recognition of the real problem so far
which is to show _why_ killing the black stone does not enable a
new uncapturable stone to exist that could not exist otherwise.
BTW, probably problem 1 is the most difficult go problem ever. (I have
no solution, either.)
--
robert jasiek
Hint 2:
http://www.snafu.de/~jasiek/j1989com.html
Robert Jasiek
> not see any territory at all on this board.
Not to be too pedantic, but what is this, an unfinished game? Certainly
not something for which a particular person lacks the ability to see any
territory. And that the game can be scored in principle has been shown
by
the area score.
--
robert jasiek
http://www.snafu.de/~jasiek/
odin maxwell
wrote:
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> # . . . . . . . .
>
>Not to be too pedantic, but how can you score an unfinished game? I do
>not see any territory at all on this board.
I'm guessing this is a question propounded to show a "flaw" in
Japanese scoring - i.e., this board can't be scored under Japanese
rules. Chinese scoring would be Black 1, white 0 plus komi. The
reasoning that this would show a flaw: since Japanese method can't
score this, and Chinese can, Chinese is better.
Maybe my assumptions about the question are all wrong and there is
something I just don't get - always a very big possiblity. If so I
whole heartedly appologize for my misunderstanding.
If not howver, I should point out that this board position, even to a
weak player like myself, is completely artificial. I don't think one
can honestly say that Chinese rules are better merely because Japanese
rules don't take into account situations that never or rarely arise.
Indeed, why bother?
Anyway - Chinese rules may well be purer mathematically. I don't have
the abilities to know in all honesty. I just like the Japanese rules
better. This is based not on proofs, but preference. BTW,it's not my
only preference that may not be "the best" either! I like bourbon
better than scotch even though good bourbon is half the price of good
scotch wiskey. ;-)
om
---+|||+----+|||+----+|||+----+|||+----+|||+----+|||+---
To hear a native speaker say Japanese Igo terms, see:
http://www.cet.com/~omaxwell/go-pron/go-pron.htm
"grendel" on IGS/NNGS, 15k*/10k*
Nick Wedd
Mike Vaughn <mtva...@neu.edu> writes
>Nick Wedd <Ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The task is simply to determine the territory score according to the Nihon
>> Kiin rules of 1989, which are the current Japanese rules.
>
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> . . . . . . . . .
>> # . . . . . . . .
>
>Not to be too pedantic, but how can you score an unfinished game? I do
>not see any territory at all on this board.
This is a finished game.
Whether a game of Go is finished is not determined by the board
position. It is determined by two (or in some rulesets three or four)
consecutive passes.
So the problem is: a game has gone
Black White
----- -----
A1 pass
pass pass
pass
and now we have to score it. Admittedly the play has not been skillful.
But a scoring method which works only with skillful play is IMHO
defective.
Nick Wedd
<vesa.laa...@teamw.com> writes
>Why, oh why there is this bloody 0.5 point komi?
The poorer the players are, the smaller the value of a move, and so the
smaller the appropriate komi. For a professional, it should be about 8;
for me, about 6; for a beginner, maybe 4. The players of this game are
clearly very incompetent indeed, so komi of 0.5 seems appropriate for
them ;-)
AuntieSpm2
Dear Nick,
>The poorer the players are, the smaller the value of a move, and so the
>smaller the appropriate komi. For a professional, it should be about 8;
>for me, about 6; for a beginner, maybe 4. The players of this game are
>clearly very incompetent indeed, so komi of 0.5 seems appropriate for
>them ;-)
>
The poorer the players, the greater the variance of results. Therefore the less
able they are to capitalize on a given advantage. Since proper komi gives
neither player an advantage, the size of the komi should be the same,
regardless of strength. <s>
Best,
Bill
Andre Engels
The advantage of komi should be equal to half the value of a move. As
weaker players play worse moves, the value of their moves is also
smaller, so komi
should be smaller.
--
Andre Engels, eng...@win.tue.nl, ICQ #6260644
http://www.win.tue.nl/cs/fm/engels/index_en.html
Of my few options this was probably the worst -- Calvin
Robert Jasiek
> weaker players play worse moves, the value of their moves is also
> smaller, so komi
> should be smaller.
The weaker a player the greater the values of his
mistakes, so komi values should be greater~!
(So as a compromise, let's choose Bill's argument. Or, even
better, the other Bill's proposal of broad komi for beginners.)
--
robert jasiek
Steve Fawthrop
How about determining komi after the game: make it equal to the
difference in scores plus half a point. That will ensure more close
games.
--
__________________________________________________________________
Stephen G. Fawthrop Ph.D. Database Administration Team Lead
Mayo Foundation Laboratory and Pathology Systems
Hilton C74F
200 S.W. 2nd St 507-266-0171
Rochester fax 507-284-0615
Minnesota 55905 fawthro...@mayo.edu
__________________________________________________________________
Views expressed in the above message are my own and do not
necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Mayo Foundation
__________________________________________________________________
Please remove 'neverland' from the return address before replying
__________________________________________________________________
Bantari
> >determine the territory score according to the Nihon Kiin
> >rules of 1989, which are the current Japanese rules.
> >
> >. . . . . . . . .
> >. . . . . . . . .
> >. . . . . . . . .
> >. . . . . . . . .
> >. . . . . . . . .
> >. . . . . . . . .
> >. . . . . . . . .
> >. . . . . . . . .
> ># . . . . . . . .
> >
> >
> >[Hint: area score = 80.5]
> >
Hehe... Why don't you just present an empty board and ask for the
score? Too hard?
Anyways - under all rules, we have to decide (agree) what is
teritorry and whose is it (in area scoring you need to know what to "fill
out") and we have to decide (agree) what is dead and what is alive.
Assumption: The game is over (actually, this is the premise), the
black stone is alive, and there is no white territory (or area) on the
board (i.e. white's teritorry or white's area is 0).
Now:
Area scoring: The whole board is black's area. Thus - fill the
board with black stones, count these stones. You get 81 (9x9), no?
Subtract komi (Or add komi to white's score, whatever). Result: for
black 81-0.5=80.5, for white 0. Thus black wins by 80.5 points.
Territory scoring: The empty space on the board is black's
teritorry. Count it - you get 80. Subtract komi. Result: for black 80-
0.5=79.5, for white 0. Whus black wins by 79.5 points.
But... what does this prove? That area scoring is inaccurate and
off by 1 point? Hmm... :-)
--
_____________________________________________________________
- Bantari -
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Bantari
> > Not to be too pedantic, but how can you score an unfinished game? I do
> > not see any territory at all on this board.
>
> not something for which a particular person lacks the ability to see any
> territory. And that the game can be scored in principle has been shown
> by
> the area score.
Geesh - you gonna beat it to death, right?
Bantari
> How about determining komi after the game: make it equal to the
> difference in scores plus half a point. That will ensure more close
> games.
Hehe... good one! :)
odin maxwell
wrote:
>This is a finished game.
>
>Whether a game of Go is finished is not determined by the board
>position. It is determined by two (or in some rulesets three or four)
>consecutive passes.
>
>So the problem is: a game has gone
> Black White
> ----- -----
> A1 pass
> pass pass
> pass
>and now we have to score it. Admittedly the play has not been skillful.
>But a scoring method which works only with skillful play is IMHO
>defective.
If this game ever happened, it was preceded by someone running in to
the room shouting "Joe - your dog just got run over by a truck!" at
which point the game ended. Rules do not need to take into account
the merely possible. ANYTHING is possible. In a baseball game, I
suppose it is possible that a metorite falling to earth, strikes a
just hit ball in just the right manner so that it shoots off into the
stands for a homerun. Would such a ball, propelled by a source other
than the batter's hit, constitute a real home run or not? I don't
know. I doubt there are any rules that would take this situation into
account. But truthfully, does it matter? Just what are the odds?
In a person's very first game of go, I doubt that anyone even suspects
he or she should stop after the first move. Playing a following move
is a natural reflex. I'll bet a dollar that no person in the low
normal range of intelligence on up would ever stop after watching his
oponent make one move - unless that person suddenly became
disinterested in playing in which case we could just call it a
resignation. Note, if the experienced player played second, he
wouldn't pass - so in the described game, the inexperienced player
MUST have had second move - this game becomes more incredible all the
time.
---+|||+----+|||+----+|||+----+|||+----+|||+----+|||+---
To hear a native speaker say Japanese Igo terms, see:
http://www.cet.com/~omaxwell/go-pron/go-pron.htm
"grendel" on IGS/NNGS, 14k*/10k*
Odin Maxwell IRL
Bantari
Yeah - pretty incredible, awright! But don't despair - with area
rules, we can rest assured that we have every base covered - and be it a
meteorite which hits the GO board during the game, area rules tell us
that white wins by komi since no areas are left to count (since the board
is wrecked). We could even account for a baseball player trying to play
GO with his bat - this is exactly what happenedin the above proble: the
baseball player was black (of course) and he clubbed his opponent dead
right after making the first move at 1,1. Area rules save the day, not
only telling us who won, but also by how much!! There is no stopping
these rules!! INCREDIBLE!!!
Muct be a gift from God, or something. Surely no human being
couls possibly think of something so wonderous. And surely, no human
being can do without area rules, is he a GO player or not!
And of course, all these millions of people who manage to squeeze
through using the clearly inferior rulesets - they are just poor deluded
souls who are in a dire need to be converted to the True Path!! So what
if they had fun and joy using the heretic rules? So what that nobody had
ever any reason to complain? They just don't know any better. We do not
want such small details to stand in the way of True Path, do we?
I vote for Rober Jasiek to be our King and Shepherd and govern us
wisely with his Area Rules and feed us these exquisite little problems
day after day after day so we can live happily ever after and never know
no sorrow nor pain again!! Hallelujah!!!
P.S. You WILL be assimilated!!
Laatikainen Vesa
>
> In article <6ua3gg$klp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Vesa Laatikainen
> <vesa.laa...@teamw.com> writes
>
> >Why, oh why there is this bloody 0.5 point komi?
>
> smaller the appropriate komi. For a professional, it should be about 8;
> for me, about 6; for a beginner, maybe 4. The players of this game are
> clearly very incompetent indeed, so komi of 0.5 seems appropriate for
> them ;-)
Interesting, but not the reason for my complain. I'd say that 0,5
komi is unnecessary in normal situations and in this problem as well.
It's the tendency of not allowing draws that hurts me.
And you remember, for me the komi is 8 when I'm black and 5,5 when
I'm white - in the same tournament.
Vesa
Robert Jasiek
> score? Too hard?
FYI, it is simple.
> Anyways - under all rules, we have to decide (agree) what is
> teritorry and whose is it (in area scoring you need to know what to "fill
> out") and we have to decide (agree) what is dead and what is alive.
Here an attempt shall be made to stop the endless discussions about
the technical parts of finishing a game. I thought they be interesting
to show differences, I apologize if they were too detailed.
Area scoring:
Everything is played out to the end. Then the game is scored as is.
No status agreement need to be done. An agreement just before the end
is an option and used as a shortcut.
Territory scoring:
Stones are put on the board until the players agree to end this process.
Then according to the rules it is determined what is to be removed.
Then both players agree that the determination is done. Then stones
are removed due to prior determination. Then the game is scored.
Robert Jasiek
As an end to the problems let me ask: What is a go problem?
Is any go position a go problem? Is only a go position that
is solved by the inventor a go problem? Is only a go position
that can presumably be solved by someone some time a go problem?
--
robert jasiek
Robert Jasiek
> I'm white - in the same tournament.
This EGF politics can, if at all, only be explained by sponsor
moneys: Japanese source as well as Ing source. As somebody has
pointed out: The AGA deserves admiration for not accepting
bribery.
--
robert jasiek
Geenius at Wrok
> Area scoring:
> Everything is played out to the end. Then the game is scored as is.
> No status agreement need to be done. An agreement just before the end
> is an option and used as a shortcut.
>
> Territory scoring:
> Stones are put on the board until the players agree to end this process.
> Then according to the rules it is determined what is to be removed.
> Then both players agree that the determination is done. Then stones
> are removed due to prior determination. Then the game is scored.
OK, forgive me for being obtuse, but what exactly is wrong with the
following arrangement: Territory scoring. Stones are put on the board
until the players agree to end this process. Part of agreeing to end the
process is agreeing what is to be removed. If there's no agreement, the
process isn't ended yet. When there is agreement, stones are removed
according to prior determination, then the game is scored.
This, as far as I can tell, is the method used on the go servers, and I
can't see anything wrong with it.
Which raises a question in my mind: Do you play on the servers, Jasiek?
And if you do, do you always insist on setting the scoring mode to area
rules before you begin?
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Live with honor, endure with grace I must admit it makes you seem
www.albany.net/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Geenius at Wrok
If this discussion weren't getting pointlessly reductionistic before, it
sure as hell is now.
Robert Jasiek
> what exactly is wrong with the
> following arrangement: Territory scoring. [...]
> This, as far as I can tell, is the method used on the go servers, and I
> can't see anything wrong with it.
Each go server has its own procedure. For the sake of simplicity,
let me restrict arguments to the IGS.
Since my intention was to end the thread ASAP, I used "territory
scoring" as above as a synonym for the traditional type of life-death
territory scoring (as e.g. in the Nihon Kiin rules). On the IGS
agreement territory scoring is used. For territory scoring this is
unusual (i.e. not used in any real world rules). But it is similar
to agreement area rules (like Chinese, Ing, New Zealand, AGA). This
means that the agreement procedure is similar (the scoring system
is different, of course).
Apart from details, little is wrong with some agreement procedure.
E.g. the international rules use them, too. One should only
understand that the late game phases of Japanese style rules are
different because they explicitly require referrence to life and
death determination.
[read on if your are interested in personal discussions...]
> Which raises a question in my mind: Do you play on the servers, Jasiek?
> And if you do, do you always insist on setting the scoring mode to area
> rules before you begin?
FYI, I play at various places, incl. servers. Whenever there is a
reasonable option and my opponent agrees, I use the best rules
available. However, I guess that I do not need to remind you that
Ing ko rules are not quite the best ko rules, so asking for GOE
rules is a doubtful option... But in the real world playing with
Tromp-Taylor rules is real fun!
Now I am curious: what is your method of choice?
[continue if interested in signatures...]
feld...@bsi.fr
> > Everything is played out to the end. Then the game is scored as is.
> > No status agreement need to be done. An agreement just before the end
> > is an option and used as a shortcut.
> >
> > Territory scoring:
> > Stones are put on the board until the players agree to end this process.
> > Then according to the rules it is determined what is to be removed.
> > Then both players agree that the determination is done. Then stones
> > are removed due to prior determination. Then the game is scored.
>
> OK, forgive me for being obtuse, but what exactly is wrong with the
> following arrangement: Territory scoring. Stones are put on the board
> until the players agree to end this process. Part of agreeing to end the
> process is agreeing what is to be removed. If there's no agreement, the
> process isn't ended yet
This is the problem! Then, capturing dead stones (which may be due to bad
manners of the opponent, or by genuine misreading , like exceptionnal
situation and such) costs points in territory scoring. The french solution
(ok, w're not the first to find it :-)) is "pass penalty": then, the moves
you have to play to capture, fillinbg your own territory, are compensated by
the pass plays of the opponent. The problem is again to teach that to
beginners: they don't understand why they should pay for passing!
. When there is agreement, stones are removed
> according to prior determination, then the game is scored.
>
> This, as far as I can tell, is the method used on the go servers, and I
> can't see anything wrong with it.
You have probably not meet stubborn enough opponents :-) In fact, you can
lose a lot of time if they will absolutely not agree on the result
>
> Which raises a question in my mind: Do you play on the servers, Jasiek?
> And if you do, do you always insist on setting the scoring mode to area
> rules before you begin?
>
> --
> "I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
> Live with honor, endure with grace I must admit it makes you seem
> www.albany.net/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Geenius at Wrok
> FYI, I play at various places, incl. servers. Whenever there is a
> reasonable option and my opponent agrees, I use the best rules
> available. However, I guess that I do not need to remind you that
> Ing ko rules are not quite the best ko rules, so asking for GOE
> rules is a doubtful option... But in the real world playing with
> Tromp-Taylor rules is real fun!
>
> Now I am curious: what is your method of choice?
My scoring method or my method of choosing a scoring method?
My scoring method of choice is NNGS default, which I think is the same as
IGS default, which is what you called "agreement territory." Everyone I
have ever played in real life did things more or less the same way,
counting territory rather than area. I have played in one AGA and one
European tournament; territory scoring was used in both, and pass stones
were used in neither, and nobody seemed to consider any of that a critical
problem in determining the final score.
As for my method of choosing a scoring method, I've always just played
according to what the people around me did and what I read in the books I
learned from (primarily "Learn to Play Go" and various books from
Kiseido). Because of these factors, I have never felt any particular urge
to use area scoring and have always been a little puzzled by some people's
almost religious enthusiasm for it. :-)
Hans F. Zschintzsch
wrote:
> ...
> Sorry Nick, the black stone is dead ...
May be it is the question how-to assign a score to any given
position. It would become the final score only if both agree
not to continue playing (both players pass).
This emphasizes the problem "When is a game finished?".
If two successive passes end the game, you must be able to
score any position.
Hans
David Sigaty
(snip)
>Here an attempt shall be made to stop the endless discussions about
>the technical parts of finishing a game. I thought they be interesting
>to show differences, I apologize if they were too detailed.
>
>Area scoring:
>Everything is played out to the end. Then the game is scored as is.
>No status agreement need to be done. An agreement just before the end
>is an option and used as a shortcut.
But Robert, are you claiming that diagram 1 represents a fully played
out position and that the players have come to an agreement just
before the end as a shortcut to playing out *the rest* of the stones
because it is clear that if they did black would win by exactly 80.5
points? :-)
I agree that the end of the game is fuzzier under Nihon Kiin rules
than elsewhere. However, I think that you overreached yourself with
problem 1. Also let's not confuse the NK rules with territory
scoring. The NK rules stop the game before the clean up but that is
not a necessary part of territory scoring is it?
(snip)
--
Dave Sigaty (daves on IGS, forfun on NNGS)
dmsi...@twics.com
Moral victories don't count.
- Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
Robert Jasiek
> But Robert, are you claiming that diagram 1 represents a fully played
> out position and that the players have come to an agreement just
> before the end as a shortcut to playing out *the rest* of the stones
> because it is clear that if they did black would win by exactly 80.5
> points? :-)
I claim that it shall be a right of the players to make an agreement
to end the game. Practical rules ought not to be no-pass rules.
Just imagine white assuming that the board territory score be 0 and
that the 0.5 komi give him the win and then black assuming that he
win by 79.5. Why should they not pass in succession? White cannot do
better than win the game, black cannot do better than gain 79.5 points.
(Of course, one of the players makes a mistake in predicting the score.
But making such a mistake is a right. Everybody has experienced a
miscalculation in a life-and-death problem.)
> However, I think that you overreached yourself with
> problem 1.
If I just started with "easy" scoring positions like diagram 2, I
would not have been exactly 100% sure to win the problem race:)
> Also let's not confuse the NK rules with territory
> scoring. The NK rules stop the game before the clean up but that is
> not a necessary part of territory scoring is it?
It is not a necessary part of agreement territory scoring with pass
stones, however, it is a necessary part of life-death territory
scoring like with the NK rules. (To be more precise: the necessiety
refers to the game end rather than the game stop of NK rules.)
--
robert jasiek
http://www.snafu.de/~jasiek/
Arijan Siska
> > >This is a finished game.
> > >
> > >Whether a game of Go is finished is not determined by the board
> > >position. It is determined by two (or in some rulesets three or four)
> > >consecutive passes.
> > >
> > >So the problem is: a game has gone
> > > Black White
> > > ----- -----
> > > A1 pass
> > > pass pass
> > > pass
If that is the case the killable stone argument is false - and the black
79.5 score is correct. I dont really see a problem here.
Thing is you cannot claim this to be any score under any rules unless
the game is not over...
Goran
Philip Ward-Ackland
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980924101152.20814D-100000@merlin>,
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Everything is played out to the end. Then the game is scored as is.
>> > No status agreement need to be done. An agreement just before the end
>> > is an option and used as a shortcut.
>> >
>> "I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
>> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>> Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
>> Live with honor, endure with grace I must admit it makes you seem
>> www.albany.net/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
>>
>>
>
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
recognise/admit his stones *are* dead) to call for/grab a spare board?
Set the position up there and play it out to their satisfaction!(Even
give them several tries if they don't believe they found 'the right
way'). Finally if/when they are convinced(or maybe you were wrong) you
can both return to the master board and finish up.
'Newbie' Philip Ward-Ackland
--
Philip Ward-Ackland