What have my ko endgame papers and proofs to do with brute force? Nothing! My rules and ko definition papers are closer to brute force but prepare further research farther away from brute force. CGT-derived research is not the only path and in fact did not reveal my findings.

My Ko paper?

- define ko in general
- describe the general nature of ko and ko fights
- provide players with a better understanding of that
- provide the by far most complete collection of long cycle shapes
- relate different rulesets by defining ko for them all
- provide new tools for describing strategy
- solve what Ing spent a lifetime to solve but could not solve
- showing paths towards defining ko threat, solving ko-related strategies, finding more ko shapes
etc.

sofar you have nothing! any player who know how to play go already knows all above.

this i like to see
where in your paper do you have this????
in what did ING spent a lifetime to solve????

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Very wrong. Of course, you cannot understand by not reading my paper carefully.



Read Ing's rules booklets and related booklets, in particular the 1991 rules. There one can see that Ing a) tried to define "ko", "ko stone(s)", ko types and related terms in general and how he failed and b) spent his lifetime (or at least his last decades) on those and further related questions. My papers provide the definitions. Where in the papers? In the definitions parts, of course.

Ok, this is getting close to having to step in, again.

Robert, your ko theory papers are exhaustive but practically particularly unhelpful. This is riling magicwand, who is now getting close to fisticuffs it seems. Magicwand, please leave Robert's way of doing things alone, even if you think they are crazy. Robert, please be aware that this thread has gone way off topic from "Please help me know whether a real ko in a real game is too big / not big enough etc" to mathematical proofs of contrived semi-complete positions.

Do other people, particularly the OP, feel that some of this has gone off topic enough to move to a thread on "ko proofs", or do I leave alone other than a reminder to not engage in personal attacks?

topazg,

1) if you are admin, feel free to move as many messages as necessary --- EDIT --- but do it equally for all users in all threads and not only when particular users are involved,

2) if messages are moved, then OT is the wrong but Study Group is the right forum because also the messages you consider moving are about study, although a different type of study,

3) choosing "ko proofs" would be a bad thread title, "Ko Research" would be more fitting because not all messages are about proofs but some are about definitions,

4) factual discussion about purposes of papers is not personal attack but "they can sit on pot every morning instead of newspaper" is not fine English art of friendly talk about nothing (eh, the weather),

5) it is wrong to describe my ko theory papers as "practically particularly unhelpful" - rather some of the papers are practically more useful than others and quite some papers contain parts or implied information that is practically particularly helpful, although the papers are written as research papers and not as go books for ordinary players,

6) I am well aware that this thread has changed topic: from my link of the practically most useful of my ko theory papers via its discussion to discussion of more ko theory papers,

7) do not treat discussion by several people as if it had been between only Magicwand and myself.

1) I have moved all posts relating to your paper and its content here.
2) I totally agree, this is definitely study group material.
3) I have chosen "Ko research and theory" - I hope that is ok?
4) I agree. It seems to be getting close to "You write nonsense, stop it", which is close to a personal attack. FWIW, cultural stereotypes about the English are a bit out of bounds, though tongue in cheek recognised (The weather is most definitely not "nothing" my dear sir!)
5) I mean practical in the context of helping Go players improve their go playing ability. As proofs and research papers, they are particularly good.
6) Hence the split
7) I've just moved 21 out of 32 posts, of which all but 4 were yourself and magicwand. The predominance of the discussion was clearly 1 vs 1, with pwaldron telling magicwand that he'd benefit from reading the paper. It's hardly a collaborative investigative discussion between a large number of interested individuals

Actually the proofs could be more complete. I was too lazy to provide all "is well-defined" proofs or shall I say: "exercise for the dear reader"? :mrgreen:

Not so. As pwaldron pointed out, the specific type of ko situation that Robert treats in his paper is one that has trapped high level players.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Bill, I think you have lost the context: the Ko paper rather than the Ko and Dame Endgames paper.

Oh. Sorry.

@ Magicwand:

Ko is in general a poorly understood aspect of the game. You cannot just say that even strong amateur players understand it. Robert is a very careful and methodical researcher. So it is possible to criticize him for straining at gnats. IMO, such criticism is misguided. A lot of progress is made step by step. Knowledge is built brick by brick.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.