Life In 19x19

@Robert: To make this explicit, John's post said nothing about the time-gaining timesujis. It only said that the time-wasting tesujis would be punished (by Kudo, were he referree). Given that, your criticism was not accurate.

hyperpape wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:I'm not quite sure how to take "redefined the game of go", as I don't think that was the intention.

Me, either. But that was the result, in more than a trivial manner. (Obviously, all rules changes redefine the game to some extent.)

Not obvious.

(Now you come back and say "it is too obvious" and that's a reasonable discussion )

Bill Spight wrote:A game is defined by its rules.

Edit: End of discussion.

I knew that "End of discussion" was a joke, but this is ridiculous.

While a discussion about the meaning of "game", "rule", and "define" would be interesting, I'll pass for that ko.

I hope that it is clear that when I said that the J89 rules redefined the game of go, I was not talking about minor changes. If you think that not all rules changes redefine a game, fine. If you think that games are not defined, and hence cannot be redefined, fine. Let's say, "significantly alter" instead of "redefine".

John Fairbairn wrote:

A game is defined by its rules.

The whole point of the Japanese approach is that that the rules don't define the game - a social compact allowing for judgement calls ranks higher. Just like that most civilised of games, cricket (and baseball, I'll allow, too).

On that last topic, anyone out there able and willing to give Mark and me advice on getting to the games in LA without a car?

To be facetious, in baseball terms, you can take a walk. To be serious, it can be dangerous to walk at night in LA, and besides, LA was built for cars. I lived there for three months and mostly took taxis to get around.

I do not agree that the approach of the J89 rules is that the rules do not define the game. I think that they are very much in the legalistic tradition, and do attempt to define the game. And that is at the root of their problem!

To be serious, it can be dangerous to walk at night in LA, and besides, LA was built for cars. I lived there for three months and mostly took taxis to get around.

Thanks, but this we know - or at least believe, thanks to Hollywood. But the Dodgers site says (hidden away) that there are Amtrak and Metroline trains to the stadium from Union Station. What they don't say is whether these are safe, and reliable for getting back. And, similarly, the problem with taxis is not so much paying for them as finding one back from the ballpark late at night. However, I think I overlap with a couple of day games.

The late-at-night problem also surfaces with Anaheim.

Was that walk you offered due to lack of control:). Was it HBP? Was it your best stuff?

It's just struck me (not HBP this time - just the dinosaur's tail twitching at last), you have armies of US officials terrified of people coming into America, and most of those trying to getting in terrified of what will happen when they get there. Shomething wrong, shurely....

John Fairbairn wrote:

To be serious, it can be dangerous to walk at night in LA, and besides, LA was built for cars. I lived there for three months and mostly took taxis to get around.

Thanks, but this we know - or at least believe, thanks to Hollywood. But the Dodgers site says (hidden away) that there are Amtrak and Metroline trains to the stadium from Union Station. What they don't say is whether these are safe, and reliable for getting back. And, similarly, the problem with taxis is not so much paying for them as finding one back from the ballpark late at night. However, I think I overlap with a couple of day games.

The late-at-night problem also surfaces with Anaheim.

Yes, getting back late at night is the main problem. However, if there is not good public transportation from the stadium then, it will probably be pretty easy to get a taxi.

-_- What did I start? lol