Ko research and theory

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:50 pm

Magicwand, you example does not provide a basic endgame ko, so my kodame paper does not apply. If you were interested in pure theory, you could apply the following though:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/external.pdf

Magicwand · Post by **Magicwand** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:07 pm

RobertJasiek wrote:Magicwand, you example does not provide a basic endgame ko, so my kodame paper does not apply. If you were interested in pure theory, you could apply the following though:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/external.pdf

thank you for your suggestion but i will refuse.
if you have something that is beneficial to me then i will gladly accept
but one example of your paper already has displayed your standard
and i wont waste my valuable time reading your useless, tedious, and complicated infomation of nothing.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:38 pm

"Nothing" is an improper characterization for general solutions of decades to centuries old key problems and for laying another fundament of a complete solution of the game centuries later. It is fitting though as an exaggerating metaphor for how little players can improve their playing strength. Mathematical go theory is still at 30k level on average (when performing as a virtual go program) with only occasional exceptional peaks at 10p level. It requires decades to centuries of patience until mathematics will always beat players and programs. Patience you lack because you are interested in your current strength improvement rather than in a contribution to a complete solution of the game. This prejudice lets you also overlook the indirect impact of mathematical go theory on everybody's understanding of strategy, tactics and terms. The times when "ko" and its values were necessarily ambiguous have already gone and responsible for that revolution are discoveries of "nothings" like

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:16 am

Magicwand · Post by **Magicwand** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:23 am

RobertJasiek wrote:"Nothing" is an improper characterization for general solutions of decades to centuries old key problems and for laying another fundament of a complete solution of the game centuries later. It is fitting though as an exaggerating metaphor for how little players can improve their playing strength. Mathematical go theory is still at 30k level on average (when performing as a virtual go program) with only occasional exceptional peaks at 10p level. It requires decades to centuries of patience until mathematics will always beat players and programs. Patience you lack because you are interested in your current strength improvement rather than in a contribution to a complete solution of the game. This prejudice lets you also overlook the indirect impact of mathematical go theory on everybody's understanding of strategy, tactics and terms. The times when "ko" and its values were necessarily ambiguous have already gone and responsible for that revolution are discoveries of "nothings" like

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf

fyi, i majored in math and i am strong enough in go to have my own opinion.
many people think bruit force way of game tree is the way to find the optimal solution.
NO!!! complete solution of this game is IMPOSSIBLE!!! so your approach is USELESS!!!
some people think tedious paper you wrote is worth something.
wow!! give them your paper so they can sit on pot every morning instead of newspaper.

i dont have to read your papaer to play optimal solution on ALL of you example.
and i am not the only one. most skd can play optimal too.

so what is the use for your paper other than burn time and patience on reader??

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:44 am

What have my ko endgame papers and proofs to do with brute force? Nothing! My rules and ko definition papers are closer to brute force but prepare further research farther away from brute force. CGT-derived research is not the only path and in fact did not reveal my findings.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:59 am

Magicwand wrote:so what is the use for your paper

My Ko paper?

- define ko in general
- describe the general nature of ko and ko fights
- provide players with a better understanding of that
- provide the by far most complete collection of long cycle shapes
- relate different rulesets by defining ko for them all
- provide new tools for describing strategy
- solve what Ing spent a lifetime to solve but could not solve
- showing paths towards defining ko threat, solving ko-related strategies, finding more ko shapes
etc.

Magicwand · Post by **Magicwand** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:32 am

RobertJasiek wrote:- define ko in general
- describe the general nature of ko and ko fights
- provide players with a better understanding of that
- provide the by far most complete collection of long cycle shapes
- relate different rulesets by defining ko for hem all

sofar you have nothing! any player who know how to play go already knows all above.

RobertJasiek wrote:- solve what Ing spent a lifetime to solve but could not solve

this i like to see

where in your paper do you have this????
in what did ING spent a lifetime to solve????

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:47 am

Magicwand wrote: any player who know how to play go already knows all above.

Very wrong. Of course, you cannot understand by not reading my paper carefully.

this i like to see :)
where in your paper do you have this????
in what did ING spent a lifetime to solve????

Read Ing's rules booklets and related booklets, in particular the 1991 rules. There one can see that Ing a) tried to define "ko", "ko stone(s)", ko types and related terms in general and how he failed and b) spent his lifetime (or at least his last decades) on those and further related questions. My papers provide the definitions. Where in the papers? In the definitions parts, of course.

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:55 am

Ok, this is getting close to having to step in, again.

Robert, your ko theory papers are exhaustive but practically particularly unhelpful. This is riling magicwand, who is now getting close to fisticuffs it seems. Magicwand, please leave Robert's way of doing things alone, even if you think they are crazy. Robert, please be aware that this thread has gone way off topic from "Please help me know whether a real ko in a real game is too big / not big enough etc" to mathematical proofs of contrived semi-complete positions.

Do other people, particularly the OP, feel that some of this has gone off topic enough to move to a thread on "ko proofs", or do I leave alone other than a reminder to not engage in personal attacks?

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:20 am

topazg,

1) if you are admin, feel free to move as many messages as necessary --- EDIT --- but do it equally for all users in all threads and not only when particular users are involved,

2) if messages are moved, then OT is the wrong but Study Group is the right forum because also the messages you consider moving are about study, although a different type of study,

3) choosing "ko proofs" would be a bad thread title, "Ko Research" would be more fitting because not all messages are about proofs but some are about definitions,

4) factual discussion about purposes of papers is not personal attack but "they can sit on pot every morning instead of newspaper" is not fine English art of friendly talk about nothing (eh, the weather),

5) it is wrong to describe my ko theory papers as "practically particularly unhelpful" - rather some of the papers are practically more useful than others and quite some papers contain parts or implied information that is practically particularly helpful, although the papers are written as research papers and not as go books for ordinary players,

6) I am well aware that this thread has changed topic: from my link of the practically most useful of my ko theory papers via its discussion to discussion of more ko theory papers,

7) do not treat discussion by several people as if it had been between only Magicwand and myself.

topazg · Post by **topazg** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:44 am

RobertJasiek wrote:topazg,

1) if you are admin, feel free to move as many messages as necessary --- EDIT --- but do it equally for all users in all threads and not only when particular users are involved,

2) if messages are moved, then OT is the wrong but Study Group is the right forum because also the messages you consider moving are about study, although a different type of study,

3) choosing "ko proofs" would be a bad thread title, "Ko Research" would be more fitting because not all messages are about proofs but some are about definitions,

4) factual discussion about purposes of papers is not personal attack but "they can sit on pot every morning instead of newspaper" is not fine English art of friendly talk about nothing (eh, the weather),

5) it is wrong to describe my ko theory papers as "practically particularly unhelpful" - rather some of the papers are practically more useful than others and quite some papers contain parts or implied information that is practically particularly helpful, although the papers are written as research papers and not as go books for ordinary players,

6) I am well aware that this thread has changed topic: from my link of the practically most useful of my ko theory papers via its discussion to discussion of more ko theory papers,

7) do not treat discussion by several people as if it had been between only Magicwand and myself.

1) I have moved all posts relating to your paper and its content here.
2) I totally agree, this is definitely study group material.
3) I have chosen "Ko research and theory" - I hope that is ok?
4) I agree. It seems to be getting close to "You write nonsense, stop it", which is close to a personal attack. FWIW, cultural stereotypes about the English are a bit out of bounds, though tongue in cheek recognised

(The weather is most definitely not "nothing" my dear sir!)
5) I mean practical in the context of helping Go players improve their go playing ability. As proofs and research papers, they are particularly good.
6) Hence the split
7) I've just moved 21 out of 32 posts, of which all but 4 were yourself and magicwand. The predominance of the discussion was clearly 1 vs 1, with pwaldron telling magicwand that he'd benefit from reading the paper. It's hardly a collaborative investigative discussion between a large number of interested individuals

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:05 am

topazg wrote:As proofs and research papers, they are particularly good.

Actually the proofs could be more complete. I was too lazy to provide all "is well-defined" proofs or shall I say: "exercise for the dear reader"? :mrgreen:

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:06 am

Magicwand wrote:
RobertJasiek wrote:- define ko in general
- describe the general nature of ko and ko fights
- provide players with a better understanding of that
- provide the by far most complete collection of long cycle shapes
- relate different rulesets by defining ko for hem all

sofar you have nothing! any player who know how to play go already knows all above.

Not so. As pwaldron pointed out, the specific type of ko situation that Robert treats in his paper is one that has trapped high level players.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:21 am

Bill, I think you have lost the context: the Ko paper rather than the Ko and Dame Endgames paper.

Life In 19x19

Ko research and theory

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Ko research and theory

Re: Ko research and theory

Re: Choosing ko: How big is too big?

Re: Ko research and theory