RobertJasiek wrote:*snip* how about discussion of my paper?
Dear Robert,
I strongly question the methodology, as well as the presentation, of your paper. I think that both aspects have to be seen as an entity.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Starting point is your definition of "basic ko" (source:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/korules.html#BasicKo):
In a basic ko a single stone can capture a single stone, this could be recaptured immediately with an opponent's single stone, and the process could be repeated infinitely. This is to be prohibited:
basic ko rule: If a single stone captures a single stone, then no single stone may recapture it immediately.
"Common understanding" would imply that the property "Basic-Ko" is connected to a board position, AS LONG AS the "Basic-Ko Rule" applies.
To make this more evident: BEFORE Black connected his single stone, there was a "Basic-Ko". AFTER Black connected, there is no "Basic-Ko" anymore.
"As long as" implies that the "history of moves" has to be taken into account.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
But -- for a reason that I do not understand -- this is not the way of your argumentation (/ thinking). You cut move sequences that are inseparably connected into slices, and consider each position after each move as if it were an independent "starting position" with no relationship to any historical development.
To make it more evident: Here is my understanding of the variation tree of a "Basic-Ko".
Main line:
Black 1 captures the Ko.
Main line: White 2 plays a Ko-threat.
-- Variation:
-- White 2 plays Tenuki.
-- Black 3 connects the Ko. End of the Ko-fight.
++ Variation:
++ White 2 passes.
++ Black 3 connects the Ko. End of the Ko-fight.
Main line: Black 3 answers the Ko-threat.
-- Variation:
-- Black connects the Ko. End of the Ko-fight.
Main line: White 4 captures the Ko.
Black 5, White 6, Black 7 as White 2, Black 3, White 4, with colours reversed.
Black 7 results -- as far as the "Basic-Ko" is concerned -- in the same board position as after Black 1.
Now let us assume that there are more than one "Basic-Ko" on the board, let's say three. As a matter of course, I assume an appropriate combination of who is to capture the Ko.
It should be evident that the concrete occurences of the above described variation tree -- applied to the three cases of "Basic-Ko" -- are interwoven.
To make it more evident:
Black 1 captures the Ko in case 1 (== Black 1 in the variation tree).
White 2 captures the Ko in case 2 (== White 4 in the variation tree). With regard to case 1, this is White playing a Ko-threat.
Black 3 captures the Ko in case 3 (== Black 1 in the variation tree). With regard to case 1, this is Black answering White's Ko-threat. With regard to case 2, this is Black playing a Ko-threat.
and so on, and so on ...
Correspondent moves -- with regard to their order in the variation tree -- are played at different times.
But there is no change between "Basic-Ko" and "non-Basic-Ko", even if any of the Ko-captures would be an Atari.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Now let's come back to your move Black 1 (within "case 3", let's say) in the minimized position, which you call "standard triple-ko", that captures White's group.
This move does not have any representation in the variation tree that is desribed above. This rises the question whether "your" move is really applicable within a "Triple-Ko".
-- Explanation 1: Black played two moves in a row. This violates one of the core rules of the game and therefore can be excluded.
-- Explanation 2: White dispensed with her move in "case 1" (assuming the existence of three "Basic-Ko"), for a reason that only you understand. This does not provide any value to the research of the issue in question. And also violates your general "forcing-idea" within your paper.
-- Explanation 3: White played a Self-Atari. This might be an interesing topic for another research paper, but does not provide any value to the research of the issue in question.
Conclusion:
"Your" move is not applicable within a "Triple-Ko". Just because you chose an artifical position with an artifical player to move.
This is comparable with someone -- who has a rudimental knowledge of the game only -- taking a snapshop of the board accidentally, and then starting with Black, just because it is Black, who begins move sequences in the majority of diagrams this one has seen before.
I do not think that you would need to stoop to this too low level.
But you did -- repeatedly -- and this will not provide to a reputation of being a "reliable researcher".
