[Computer-go] Definition of single-point eye
uurtamo at gmail.com
Thu Oct 30 14:42:42 PDT 2014
I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, and since I was taught by
people trained in Japanese rules, I think it's a much more natural way to
learn. They're subtle when you're first learning.
For my first few games, I was given a basic outline of the rules.
Exceptions to a small set of rules are rare enough early on that you can
wait to explain them.
It is incredibly difficult for me to teach this way. I want to get all
cases completely down on the table. But the reality is that people don't
feel fooled when you later explain the special case. They realize that it's
unusual (at that stage in their game experience) and are willing to roll
When explaining how to repair a car engine, you don't need to talk about
metal alloys on the first day.
Most of my friends read board games' rules cover to cover before playing a
For go this is a bit much to ask. I think that it's much more fun to absorb
only as much as necessary to get started and to have tiny details
(superko?) filled out later.
Getting beginners addicted to the game is key to the game's success. Laying
out a Wittgensteinian rulebook in advance just keeps the logicians
Apologies to Robert Jasiek -- your work is impressive and I believe key to
advancing computer approaches to the game.
On Oct 30, 2014 2:26 PM, "robertfinkng555 at o2.co.uk" <
robertfinkng555 at o2.co.uk> wrote:
> If your aim is to attract new players, I think you need not worry about
> accuracy. I have seen a number of people put off Go by avid players going
> into too much detail too quickly, which makes it seem like a boring game
> you can only play if you are fanatical about detail. In fact Go is beginner
> friendly because 1. the rules are simple 2. at beginner levels you can make
> lots of mistakes and still win - unlike chess there is no "oops I lost my
> queen". I think you need to emphasise the fun and how easy it is
> If you really want to get a good definition for an eye, I think you need
> something a bit different. E.g. what about the eyes a,b in this group?
> . . . . . .
> . X X X . .
> . X . X . .
> . . X . x .
> . . X X X .
> . . . . . .
> Ask yourself this: if you came up with a really great definition of an
> eye, would that be more or less likely to attract new players?
> Just a thought
> All the best with the flyer :-)
> On 23/10/2014 23:17, Peter Drake wrote:
> I'm writing up some "how to play Go" flyers and and want to make sure I'm
> being precise. How is this for a definition of a [single-point] eye?
> An eye is a vacant point, surrounded [orthogonally] by stones of the
> same color, that can only be filled by simultaneously capturing all of the
> surrounding stones.
> Note that this is a "real" eye, not a "pseudo" or "quasi" eye as we
> often use in Monte Carlo search.
> Also, because these are rules for beginners, I'm only interested in
> one-point eyes. Under AGA (and, I think, Chinese) rules, confused players
> can always keep going until all eyes are one-point eyes.
> I *think* this definition works regardless of whether adjacent blocks
> have one or two eyes. (If filling is always illegal, it certainly requires
> capturing all of the surrounding stones.)
> Is there a horrible flaw in my definition?
> Peter Drake
> Computer-go mailing listComputer-go at dvandva.orghttp://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8470 - Release Date: 10/28/14
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at dvandva.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Computer-go