[computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

[Nick Wedd]

In message <ac1bb1350701031457tfd7cf22w6f7812d33dbdd2f5 at mail.gmail.com>, 
Nick Apperson <apperson at gmail.com> writes
>The japanese rules have problems and there have been cases where 2
>professionals argue about the outcome of a game.  They are not clearly
>defined for obscure cases. 

I am doubtful.  There have certainly been cases in the past, but I think 
the 1989 Japanese rules are clearly defined for all cases.  Can you give 
an example which you consider doubtful?

>In addition, they are not simple.  Ing
>rules and chinese rules are both reasonable sets of rules because there
>is no room for argument about who wins. 

Chinese rules are fine (apart from their ambiguity about superko).  But 
Ing rules are the worst rule set I have come across.  Their problem is 
not with knowing who wins, it is with knowing whether a move is legal. 
For an example, see the second diagram at
http://www.weddslist.com/cgi-bin/goban.pl?url=http://www.maproom.co.uk/us
eful/ing-matti.html .  Yang Yu-Chia (one of the three people in the 
world with a credible claim to understand the Ing rules) has admitted 
that he does not know whether Black can start the ko in the second 
diagram.

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd    nick at maproom.co.uk