Since triple ko is an unbranched 6 move sequence, it is sufficient to recall the initial position of the 3 ko stones. This is MUCH easier than almost all go problems. Therefore one should not say that players would not be able to play triple ko correctly. It becomes difficult only if a player first plays a couple of moves WITHOUT THINKING and then starts to wonder which the initial position was. Stupidity!
If you need an argument about difficulty, use quadruple ko as an example.
Which solution to complex kos do you prefer?
-
RobertJasiek
- Judan
- Posts: 6272
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:54 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- Been thanked: 797 times
- Contact:
-
SaiLens
- Dies in gote
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:05 am
- GD Posts: 0
- KGS: 3d
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Which solution to complex kos do you prefer?
I think
1) a game should be finite
2) in finite play, jigo should be possible
3) a game should only count as won if player A can force a result in which B ends up with fewer points
If neither player can force a winning position in finite play, the game should be a draw.
Here, it's irrelevant whether the two players formally agree to a draw - after all, if either could force a win "naturally" by playing until there are no legal moves left to play, they would. By refusing to play a finite game (continuing the multi-ko), the players already implicitly agree to a draw.
As to how that draw should be dealt with in a tournament setting, that's a different question. Obviously most organizers don't want to deal with draws at all.
Moreover, I would not want to have to deal with a rule that forces me to remember if a given position has occurred before and if it was my move or my opponent's... that's neither elegant nor logical, just convenient - but not for the players.
1) a game should be finite
2) in finite play, jigo should be possible
3) a game should only count as won if player A can force a result in which B ends up with fewer points
If neither player can force a winning position in finite play, the game should be a draw.
Here, it's irrelevant whether the two players formally agree to a draw - after all, if either could force a win "naturally" by playing until there are no legal moves left to play, they would. By refusing to play a finite game (continuing the multi-ko), the players already implicitly agree to a draw.
As to how that draw should be dealt with in a tournament setting, that's a different question. Obviously most organizers don't want to deal with draws at all.
Moreover, I would not want to have to deal with a rule that forces me to remember if a given position has occurred before and if it was my move or my opponent's... that's neither elegant nor logical, just convenient - but not for the players.