[computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

[Petri Pitkanen]

2007/1/4, Don Dailey <drd at mit.edu>:
>
> No, this inhibits the application of skill.   A "silly" invasion that
> wastes time is punished in all rules sets,  but in Chinese it may not
> be silly if it doesn't waste time - Japanese rules unfairly defines
> these moves as "silly."
It is silly if opponents best reply is pass


>
> Chinese is better in this regard.   You can try these invasions and
> put your opponent under pressure to refute them.
>
Is the refutation is pass even then?

> When a Japanese player has a possible invasion that he knows is
> difficult
> but possible to defend,  he must decide whether to play "correctly" or
> whether to gamble that his opponent won't be able to find the defense.
>
It it is severe enough that opponent has to reply It does not matter
in any rule set. In Japanese if silly invasions needs a real
refutation player gains point for extra prisoner and loses a point
reply inside his/her own territory. No gamble there.

BUT if it is so silly that PASS only thing that is needed, why in
earth obviously the more skilled player i.e the one who knew "that
move does not even need an answer" should not be awarded a point for
it?

Remember Chinese and Japanese rules give same outcome as long as
players made same number of moves.

-- 
Petri Pitkänen
e-mail: petri.t.pitkanen at gmail.com
Phone: +358 50 486 0292