Life In 19x19

Mod edit by topazg: Split thread from Is Japanese or Western literature more brilliant? on Robert's request

lemmata wrote:Are there experts working on this topic other than yourself?

Not on exactly same (rules-derived definism is mainly my field). The next closest related ko researchers are, I think, linked here:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?ResearchOnKo
http://www.dumbo.ai.kyutech.ac.jp/~teigo/GoResearch/

However, their research is mostly CGT-related - mine is CGT-independent.

EDIT:

There was a predecessor: Ing (for Ing ko rules). He had no mathematical skills though and so failed in his attempt to "define" ko. His construction was refuted by my (almost trivial) proof that each stone in each position is a "ko stone";) However, his attempt motivated me.

Your condescension is unwarranted. I of course know that you look at the index. Indeed, I spend a lot of time thinking about what makes websites usable, and how to structure their presentation of information.

I may choose "overview" under ko rules, but I may also look to "basic ko rules" since I have wanted the definition of "basic ko" from your ko paper. If it is my first time looking at your site, I may go to the ko paper, since it is simply titled "ko".

Say I go to the "study" page as you suggest, and look. First try: "ko"--this links to your paper. I am told to go elsewhere. Next, I might try "types of basic kos". That seems promising, since I need to know what a basic ko is (I can probably guess this, but say I wish to check). I am defeated, since that paper does not define basic ko. The other two pages are not helpful either.

May God help me if I make the mistake of clicking "rules" in the header.

For the love of God: when you say "defined elsewhere" give a link, or the title of a paper, or design your webpage so that there is text stating "this paper defines x".

You complain that you lack time. Doing this would take less time than many of the comments you write on L19, and would be 1000 times useful.

It is as if you are actively trying to sabotage the distribution of your own ideas.

May God help me if I make the mistake of clicking "rules" in the header.

Some of the basic defs you find in rules texts. Some in rec.games.go articles, some elsewhere.

You complain that you lack time.

It is not a complaint but a matter of fact.

Doing this would take less time than many of the comments you write on L19, and would be 1000 times useful.

Different usages of times I do not equate 1:1.

***

I cannot find a place of an explicit definition of "basic ko" quickly, although I recall to have done it. Usually, the term occurs implicitly in the context of a "basic ko [rule]", which is easier defined without first defining the two intersections. The additional problem is the transition of name from "ko" (in the meaning of basic ko) to "basic ko", see e.g.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/korules.html

So, to make it easier, I copy from

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003com.html

and substitute the name I have been using during the recent years:

"A 'basic-ko' consists of two adjacent intersections so that a play on one of them succeeded by a play on the other one would recreate the position."

"intersection" and "position" are, e.g., defined here:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003.html

(Before you ask for places to other basic terms incl. "[board-] play", "current-position", "area score", I do not have time during at least 6 weeks to locate them. I know, this is not optimal, and I would like to have 3 free months to point to all my earlier research results. A couple of years ago, I found I was spending 1/17 of my time on archiving files, and thought it was too much.)

RobertJasiek wrote: ........

hyperpape wrote: Doing this would take less time than many of the comments you write on L19, and would be 1000 times useful.

Different usages of times I do not equate 1:1.
....

1:1000 perhaps

If you are referring to hyperpape's assumption of 1 time spent for writing to save 1000 readers 1 time for searching, no, this I am not referring to. Rather I am speaking of my different uses for time. I would like to avoid having to spend time on human necessities so that I, uh, could play more go, whose spent time I value much higher. But such equations do not work because one cannot avoid necessities. One cannot assign umlimited fractions of time to specific activities - other activities also need their fractions.

I'm not sure how much this will help, but Senseis Library has a couple of pages devoted to explaining some of Robert's go terms :

http://senseis.xmp.net/?AGeneralDefinitionOfKo
http://senseis.xmp.net/?GoTermsByRobertJasiek

Btw, has anyone else noticed the uncanny resemblance between the name Jasiek and the word joseki?

i tried yet again to understand his writing and failed again...
http://senseis.xmp.net/?AGeneralDefinitionOfKo <----second example is not ko. it is more like ko threat to me.

am i missing something???

Magicwand wrote:i tried yet again to understand his writing and failed again...
http://senseis.xmp.net/?AGeneralDefinitionOfKo <----second example is not ko. it is more like ko threat to me.

am i missing something???

It's a bit more complicated than that. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?RoundRobinKo

Magicwand, my general ko definition defines ko-intersection on an intersection-wise basis, then defines ko as the connected ko-intersections, then notices that a round-robin-ko consists of two "kos". The paper does not(!) define "ko threat"; a general definition of that is an open research problem.

Depending on one's perception of "ko threat", one could or could not perceive plays in one of the two cycles-related round-robin-kos as ko threats for the other of the two. So, until we have a general (and then hopefully best) definition of ko threat, your perception that ko threats are being involved in every round-robin cycle is a possibility, which makes some sense. The alternative view, that plays in cycles defining the same kos are not ko threats, also makes some sense. Future research will have to decide which perception is more meaningful or useful.

Maybe some confusion arises because this paper calls "basic ko" what most of us call "ko" and calls "ko" what assumably is a special kind (or all kinds??) of repetition.
Should be better to mention this at the beginning of the paper (except this is only for experts...)

"ko" is "all kinds" incl. things such as double ko, triple ko, round-robin-kos, eternal life, triple ko stones, quadruple ko stones, combination of eternal life and two-stage-ko, diamond ko etc. The basic kind is called "basic-ko" to avoid ambiguity with the "all kinds" usage.

RobertJasiek wrote:Magicwand, my general ko definition defines ko-intersection on an intersection-wise basis, then defines ko as the connected ko-intersections, then notices that a round-robin-ko consists of two "kos". The paper does not(!) define "ko threat"; a general definition of that is an open research problem.

Depending on one's perception of "ko threat", one could or could not perceive plays in one of the two cycles-related round-robin-kos as ko threats for the other of the two. So, until we have a general (and then hopefully best) definition of ko threat, your perception that ko threats are being involved in every round-robin cycle is a possibility, which makes some sense. The alternative view, that plays in cycles defining the same kos are not ko threats, also makes some sense. Future research will have to decide which perception is more meaningful or useful.

your second example i pointed out is not a ko.
it is another variation of seki.
you calling it a ko is wrong.
that doesnt even fit YOUR definition of ko.

Magicwand wrote:your second example i pointed out is not a ko.
it is another variation of seki.
you calling it a ko is wrong.
that doesnt even fit YOUR definition of ko.

It includes a potential cycle so it looks like a ko. See the page on round robin kos. I believe some sekis involve kos, though I don't have time to find an example right now.

As for it not meeting Robert's definition, that would be an interesting fact, and you should prove it.

Magicwand wrote:your second example i pointed out is not a ko.
it is another variation of seki.

Under most rulesets, it is the players' strategic choice whether to treat the simple variant of a round-robin-ko as a ko or seki or either during different times of the game. This duality has been known for decades or maybe longer.

you calling it a ko is wrong.

It is not wrong because the ko-like behaviour is consistent with other shapes' cycle behaviour and because it has so much been considered a long cycle ko that it has "ko" in its name.

(Technically, my paper identifies two kos in the simple variant of a round-robin-ko.)

that doesnt even fit YOUR definition of ko.

Please demonstrate that it (the 8 interesting intersections) did not comply with consisting of local-ko-intersections.

A 4-ko from Gu Li and Lee Sedol's game yesterday: