Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Oops it looks like an adaptation of CGT to specific rules with adding complexity. CGT can be a success on go player community only if it is efficient (OC) but not too complex.
My view is that it is completly unuseful to try to resolve in CGT zugswang positions (I mean positions like seki or three points without capture, which will be definitly resolved after the last dame had been played).
In one part such resolution is highly dependent on the specific rules and will add difficulties on CGT, and in other part these positions are very known to any go player and easily resolved by them.
Do you see a problem if a go player, using CGT, replace systematically any zugswang positions encountered during analasis by the number corresponding to the resolution of this position by the go player in accordance to the rules used?
That way CGT stays not too complex while go players could not be upset by the resolution of these zugswang positions which are, most of the time, quite obvious.
Well, I have a certain fondness for a group tax.
I am also not bothered by variations in the rules of games.
My preference going forward is for Button Go, which can easily be implemented by a small change in the AGA rules, and which has already been used in international play.
All that aside, I think that one major value of CGT is the demonstration that territory scoring is not illogical, as has been claimed and widely believed.
And as practical matters, chilled go infinitesimals, difference games, and ko evaluation are significant advances in go theory.
Edit: And, OC, thermography agrees with traditional go evaluation, but adds potentially important information.