Jijbent.nl
Forum van jijbent.nl
 
 FAQFAQ   ZoekenZoeken   GebruikerslijstGebruikerslijst   GebruikersgroepenGebruikersgroepen 
 ProfielProfiel   VoorkeurenVoorkeuren   Log in om je privé berichten te bekijkenLog in om je privé berichten te bekijken   InloggenInloggen 

Plaats Reactie Ga naar Pagina Vorige  1, 2, 3, 4
Vorige onderwerp :: Volgende onderwerp  
Auteur Bericht
klaashaas
BerichtGeplaatst: Wo Aug 23, 2006 15:53    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote

Vinnie schreef:
Wat is daar eigenlijk de gedachte achter?




# Comment by jwaytogo:
May 2, 2006 @ 8:06 pm

A little bit of history.

This dilemma stems from the day go players decided to do away with classical rules of go, which involved group tax. The victory conditions in ancient chinese go rules stated that whoever could play the most stones on the board would be the victor. This rule was very elegant, but not without its own issues. Players would be content to play as many stones onto the board as they could (filling in their own territory) without killing themselves. This meant that every group would get filled up until each group had two eyes. At which point, the players would start to pass. When both players passed and refused to play any more stones on the board, the stones sitting on the board were counted, and the player with the most stones sitting on the board would win. Very simple, no?

The side effect of this rule, was that every group was taxed 2 points. The 2 points that were considered necessary for the eyes. Eyes of a group were considered to belong to neither player, since these 2 remaining spaces in the group were neutral. One player (the owner of the group) would be unwilling to play in the eyes, as that would result in suicide, and the other player (the opponent) would be unable to play in the eyes, since there were no liberties.

Groups in seki had similar neutral points (be they common liberties or eyes in seki). Whether the seki had eyes or not, these neutral points in seki did not belong to either player. As long as neither player were willing or able to play in a spot, that particular spot belonged to neither player. It was a very elegant rule.

The problem with group tax was that it became viable to have fewer groups. The fewer groups you had, the less penalty you would have to take at the end of the game to make the necessary eyes. If you had 5 groups and your opponent only had 1 group, you had to take an additional 8 point deficit compared to modern rules. This would be a big difference! Note that komi today is not even that much…

Our wise predecessors decided that group tax stifled the game. Everyone was intent on keeping as connected as possible. Large moyos were more viable, and getting cut was painful. Invasions were less likely too. So group tax was done away with! We decided to award the points in the eyes to the player who “controlled” the eye. The eye was now considered the territory of the player who owned the eye.

This brings us to the dilemma of seki. If we arbitrarily assigned the eyes of a group to a the player who owned the group, could we not also assign the eyes in seki to the player who controlled the eye? This is not that apparent. If a group with 2 eyes is alive, it becomes easy to assign those two eyes to the player who controls the eyes. But a group in seki can be alive with 1 eye…we either declare that the group is truly “alive” and give the point in the eye to the player who controls the eye, or we declare that it is not truly “alive”, since it only has 1 eye. If we were to allow 1-eyed groups to be “alive”, we would have to spend a significant amount of effort to define all the various sorts of 1-eyed groups that are “alive”, and all the various sorts of 1-eyed groups that are not “alive”(Most 1-eyed groups are not alive).

When we did away with group tax, the game became more versatile, but also lost some of its elegance. We started needing to define how to score many exceptions that would crop up, seki being one of them. Different rulesets now disagree on how to score seki, but here is the background to this dilemma.

Beyond this, territory and area scoring (in a broad sense) strive to score the same thing, the proportion of the board “controlled” by both players without being penalized for having more groups.

http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/wordpress/?p=36
Naar boven
judywOffline
Vip
Vip
Geregistreerd op: 23-8-2004
Totaal berichten: 118
Geslacht: Vrouw
BerichtGeplaatst: Do Aug 24, 2006 23:56    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote

De puntentelling klopt nog steeds niet.

http://www.jijbent.nl/go/show.php?gamenumber=3571047

volgens mijn telling won ik met 24.5 punten, maar het programma gaf me er 8 minder!
Naar boven
Bekijk gebruikers profiel MSN Messenger 
Kevintju
BerichtGeplaatst: Vr Aug 25, 2006 3:38    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote

judyw schreef:
De puntentelling klopt nog steeds niet.

http://www.jijbent.nl/go/show.php?gamenumber=3571047

volgens mijn telling won ik met 24.5 punten, maar het programma gaf me er 8 minder!

De dode stenen worden niet meer geteld als punten, gezien de eindstand.
Naar boven
Vinnie
BerichtGeplaatst: Vr Aug 25, 2006 18:08    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote

hum, foutje Embarassed hopelijk nu beter
Naar boven
ryuu42
BerichtGeplaatst: Za Sep 02, 2006 16:44    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote

judyw schreef:
Pombeest gefeliciteerd!

Tegen mij won hij ook al op TPR in de halve finale, ik was me al aan 't verheugen om de finale tegen jou te spelen. Razz
Naar boven
Berichten van afgelopen:   
Plaats Reactie Tijden zijn in GMT + 2 uur
Ga naar Pagina Vorige  1, 2, 3, 4
Pagina 4 van 4

 
Ga naar:  
Je mag geen nieuwe onderwerpen plaatsen
Je mag geen reacties plaatsen
Je mag je berichten niet bewerken
Je mag je berichten niet verwijderen
Ja mag niet stemmen in polls


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group