tundra wrote:Now, is this scenario possible in a "real" game, between "self-respecting" players?
thanks, you made me smile today
Out of stones
-
xed_over
- Oza
- Posts: 2264
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:51 am
- Has thanked: 1179 times
- Been thanked: 553 times
Re: Out of stones
thanks, you made me smile today
-
topazg
- Tengen
- Posts: 4511
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:08 am
- Rank: Nebulous
- GD Posts: 918
- KGS: topazg
- Location: Chatteris, UK
- Has thanked: 1579 times
- Been thanked: 650 times
- Contact:
Re: Out of stones
OT, I love how the "no true Scotsman" fallacy has "For the practice of wearing a kilt without undergarments, see True Scotsman." in a tagline under the title.
-
shapenaji
- Lives in sente
- Posts: 1103
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:58 pm
- Rank: EGF 4d
- GD Posts: 952
- Location: Netherlands
- Has thanked: 407 times
- Been thanked: 422 times
Re: Out of stones
I feel like this is a question for KGS statistics.
Has there ever been a game in which one side played more than 181 moves?
If so, has there been a game in this set where the number of shared prisoners was less than the number that one side played over 181 moves?
I feel like it's possible and probably happened. (Especially in Computer: New Zealand matches)
Has there ever been a game in which one side played more than 181 moves?
If so, has there been a game in this set where the number of shared prisoners was less than the number that one side played over 181 moves?
I feel like it's possible and probably happened. (Especially in Computer: New Zealand matches)
Tactics yes, Tact no...