A Problem Race (2)
Robert Jasiek
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . O . . .
. . O . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . # . . . . . . # . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Enjoy!
[Hint: area score = -0.5]
And no, I do not know the solution. I kindly ask you to teach us
about territory scoring.
--
robert jasiek
http://www.snafu.de/~jasiek/
AuntieSpm2
Dear Robert,
>And no, I do not know the solution. I kindly ask you to teach us
>about territory scoring.
>
I appreciate your sense of humor. <g>
If this were actually the end of the game, I think that both players would
assume that the walls were alive and that the solo stones were dead. Who am I
to disagree? <g>
Bill
Robert Jasiek
> If this were actually the end of the game, I think that both players would
> assume that the walls were alive and that the solo stones were dead. Who am I
> to disagree? <g>
Ca. two of the single stones might be capturable living strings. <g>
Best,
--
robert jasiek
http://www.snafu.de/~jasiek/rules.html
Bantari
> 0.5 komi. What is the territory score according to the NK89 rules?
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . O . . .
> . . O . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> # # # # # # # # # # # # #
> O O O O O O O O O O O O O
> . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . # . . . . . . # . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> Enjoy!
>
> [Hint: area score = -0.5]
>
> about territory scoring.
>
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
walls (both black and white) are alive, and solitary stones are dead (you
can make an argument that you do not have to make the latter assumption
under area scoring, but so what?)
Now:
Area scoring: Take all the solitary stones and throw them away.
Fill the upper half of the board (everything above the black wall) with
black stones. Count the black stones. You get 6x13=78. This is exactly
half of the board area of 156. Thus - on the board it is jigo and white
wins by the komi of 0.5 points.
Another point can be made by saying that the areas need not to be
filled in this particular situation under area rules. You just count
what is on the board - 13 black stones versus 13 white stones - thus jigo
again, and so white wins by the komi of 0.5 points. Personally, I see
the fact that such approach is possible as a weakness of area rules.
What if the white solitary stones are dead (can be killed by hypothetical
play or whatever) while the black solitary stones cannot be killed? This
would twist the whole result and invalidate the game - and area scoring
tends to tempt with such shortcuts at times.
Territory scoring: The upper half of the board is black's
teritorry, with two dead white stones in it. Thus black has 65 point of
territorry and 2 prisoners, making 65+2=67 points. The bottom half is
white's territory with two black prisoners - so white also has 65+2=67
points. Thus - jigo on the board, so white wins by the komi of 0.5
points.
This shows clearly that in this particular situation area scoring
is accurate and can probably be safely used. Quite surprising. :-)
--
_____________________________________________________________
- Bantari -
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Laatikainen Vesa
>
> 0.5 komi. What is the territory score according to the NK89 rules?
>
>
> Enjoy!
>
> [Hint: area score = -0.5]
>
and count the score for each position (no komi)? That would
be even more enjoyable.
Vesa
Nick Wedd
<ban...@mynet.com> writes
> Area scoring: Take all the solitary stones and throw them away.
What an extraordinary thing to do! Do you normally do this at the end
of a game?
X . O . X O
X X X X X O
. . O O O O
O O O . O .
X . X . X O .
X O O O X O O
X X X X X O .
O O O O O O O
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Bantari
This is a pretty dense remark from somebody of your intelligence,
Nick. Did you even read my post? I said "Assuming the solitary stones
are *dead*". This was my premise to throw them all away. Now think
again - if you don't have anything better to nitpick, better don't
nitpick at all.
Also, I resent you quoting my sentence so totally out of context.
Read the *whole* post, and try to grasp the ideas. *Then* you can quote.
>>>>>> Nick Wedd says...
--
Nick Wedd
<ban...@mynet.com> writes
> This is a pretty dense remark from somebody of your intelligence,
>Nick. Did you even read my post? I said "Assuming the solitary stones
>are *dead*". This was my premise to throw them all away. Now think
>again - if you don't have anything better to nitpick, better don't
>nitpick at all.
>
> Also, I resent you quoting my sentence so totally out of context.
>Read the *whole* post, and try to grasp the ideas. *Then* you can quote.
OK. I should have read your post more thoroughly. You did indeed say
earlier in it
> Assumption: The game is over (actually, this is the premise), the
> walls (both black and white) are alive, and solitary stones are dead
If I had read this properly, I would not have made such a foolish reply.
I apologise.
Bantari
Hehe... this happens. I hope I have not been to harsh in my
choice of words. My fuse is getting a little short lately, dealing with
folks you cannot argue with and such... you know.
No hard feelings, I hope.
>>>>>> Nick Wedd says...
--