Life In 19x19

If you do not read the computer-go mailing list, here are some thoughts on how to research brilliantly:



FIXED KO RULE

Actual Research Process:

- Reduction to the simpler and yet simpler until further reduction is impossible.
- Solving something seemingly unrelated (Ing-ko rules).

More Efficient Research in Retrospect:

- Slight variation of something already existing (positional superko rule).


LIFE TYPE CAPTURABLE-2

Actual Research Process:

- Trial and error (trying one pile of definitions after another).
- Searching for a model of the real world (the given sample set of arcane example shapes).
- Solving something seemingly unrelated (Japanese style rules).

More Efficient Research in Retrospect I:

- Relating two views of the real world to each other (two-eye-alive versus capturability-alive).

More Efficient Research in Retrospect II:

- Analysing structure occurring in the real world (local-2 environments).


CORE CONDITION OF GLOBAL-KO-INTERSECTION

Actual Research Process:

- Trial and error (trying one pile of definitions after another).
- Searching for a model of the real world (the given sample set of arcane example shapes).
- Solving other problems first (Japanese style rules, Ing-ko rules etc.)
- Accumulating or discovering more and more related factual knowledge and methods (related to ko or rules).

More Efficient Research in Retrospect:

- Looking directly for the key nature of the studied real world aspect (ko fights and why they are played in real games).



Concluding, research could be much faster and more efficient if only one would attack problems directly by the right means in a simple, straightforward manner. I.e., find brilliant results by brilliant research! So far I could identify a few aspects of such brilliancy but in reality I am still as slow and inefficient a researcher as ever - seeing the shortcuts to new brilliant results only in retrospect. Therefore I hope for further insight from you.

I'm not that interested, but do you mean "search" and not "research?" And "current" and not "actual?"

In retrospect means looking backward; I think you mean looking forward.

So, since you are bringing up the fixed ko rule again, do you yet have an answer, to my statements on it?

kirkmc, I do mean research, actual and in retrospect. Concerning the latter, we might learn from the past for future research.

nagano, your reference to your earlier statement is too unclear for me to decipher your current question. Please state it explicitly again!

Robert Jasiek wrote:

I was asking for a clarification of the initial rule

Let A be the position before a play. Let B be the position after that play. The play is defined by the pair (A|B). Fixed-ko-rule: In a game, each particular (A|B) may occur at most once during a play.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?FixedKoRule

Ok, then. So the rule does mean what I originally thought it did. In that case, I still disagree. Although it does not actually have the word "disturber", the concept is there. The basic effect of the rule is that the attacking side (black in the linked example) always wins, and that white is the disurber. The alternative would be that the position is allowed to repeat once, allowing white to defend. This rule would imply, stated or not, that black is the disturber. So a choice of one or the other is arbitrary, and from a subjective perspective, I think a decision in favor of either is unfair in most cases.

This is the question I am referring to. If you disagree with my assessment, can you tell me why?

nagano wrote:So the rule does mean what I originally thought it did. In that case, I still disagree.

If you disagree about more than what you have just cited, you need to state it explicitly!

Although it does not actually have the word "disturber", the concept is there.

Correct. The fixed ko rule does not use that term.

The basic effect of the rule is that the attacking side (black in the linked example) always wins,

A formal proof for that still does not exist but AFAIK yes.

and that white is the disurber.

It is possible to invent the term disturber so that White would be it in the example. (Disturber might be defined about like this: "Given a ko, a position and the previous move not being a play in that ko. The player having the turn now making an - according to the general definition of "ko" - cyclical play in the ko is currently called its disturber. He will remain the disturber as long as the ko continues to exist consisting of the same set of intersections and until the subsequent move-sequence reaches a play (i.e. not a pass) that is not in the ko.")

The alternative

Surely there is more than one alternative.

would be that the position is allowed to repeat once, allowing white to defend.

Such an alternative is possible in principle.

This rule would imply, stated or not, that black is the disturber.

It depends on how you define "disturber". Present a useful(!) definition to fulfil your claim! However, I guess you are intending something else here: Assessing ko winner and ko loser.

So a choice of one or the other is arbitrary,

I am not sure yet what you want to choose among. Different definitions of disturber? Different ko outcomes (who will be the ko winner)? Different ko rules? Depending on what you want, it might be arbitrary. However, disturber has been used, starting with Ing, along the meaning I describe above. What surely can be arbitrary (before we have specified the used ko rules) is the outcome of a ko.

and from a subjective perspective, I think a decision in favor of either is unfair in most cases.

In which sense "unfair"?

This is the question I am referring to. If you disagree with my assessment, can you tell me why?

Since it is still by far too imprecise what your assessment is, there is nothing I could already finally agree or disagree to. Again I ask you to clarify your statements! Then I would like to understand whether your statements are supposed to be praise or criticism of the fixed ko rule or whether they shall be neither. What do your statements have to do with the thread's subject?

RobertJasiek wrote:

The alternative

Surely there is more than one alternative.

I am sure there is, but can you find another one that does not increase the complexity of the initial rule?

This rule would imply, stated or not, that black is the disturber.

It depends on how you define "disturber". Present a useful(!) definition to fulfil your claim! However, I guess you are intending something else here: Assessing ko winner and ko loser.

That is correct. The question is that choosing a fixed ko rule that would in most cases choose which side wins, can either be fairly chosen? I don't think so. This is why, while simple, I think there must be a better solution than the fixed ko rule.

What do your statements have to do with the thread's subject?

Perhaps you missed the link in the first post. It is to an earlier thread in which we were discussing the fixed ko rule, which you discontinued on account of time. If you consider this an inappropriate place to discuss it, I apologize, and will request this segment of the thread be moved if you wish.