= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed comments on Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (145)
The position in Figure 3 looks alive to me. One eye in the center, and miai for eyes at the two points diagonally below.
I came to the comment section to say this, but you saved me the trouble.
As it is, though, it's not really important to the point of the article.
Thanks for the feedback. You're right: for players with more than beginning skill, I agree that Fig 3 is alive (and Peter de Blanc is right that Fig 2 is not "unconditionally alive") in the original versions of the figures. I've revised Figures 2 and 3 accordingly. (So the rest of you shouldn't worry if this comment thread seems confusing! If you're interested, the original versions are here and here.)
In choosing examples, I was aiming for arrangements that visually conveyed the three states of close surrounding, surrounding with internal structure, and something intermediate. The goal is to be able to talk about "life" and "death" as alternative states the game might be in, like alternative hypotheses of reality, to serve the go/rationality analogy, without having to explain the rules. I hope the revised versions still do this, while making their labels more correct.
White is still alive in the modified figure 3. Sorry. One full eye and two half eyes.
Again, thank you. I've made another fix. As you can see, life and death problems are not my strength!
I agree. But on the other hand I wouldn't worry about it too much. You get the point across to newbies, and veterans already know what you're talking about without the pictures. The only real danger is somebody who has read the rules but has never played games. (But since you linked to a site with the rules, maybe that is a danger after all!)
Don't worry: I don't know the rules of Go; I went to the site linked; and I could only find a link to a link to a video tutorial, not a list of rules, so I stopped trying.
Well, that's a shame.
Read these or these if you're interested, but only after reading the OP, of course!
There' s kos, or maybe just the order of play - but then if 3 is "unsettled" in this way, then so is 2. [EDIT: figures 2 and 3 have been updated since this comment was written]
I don't understand this comment.
[EDIT: Also, I agree with the GP: figure 1 is dead, figures 2 and 3 are alive.]
Do you mean you think there is no possible way for black to kill white in 2 and 3 - no matter what the situation is on the rest of the board? [EDIT: figures 2 and 3 have been updated since this comment was written]
There is no way to kill those groups if white is trying to save them and does not make any mistakes. This is the usual meaning of "alive" in Go.
Right - but they might possibly yet die if white is trying to win.
I was trying to find a sympathetic reading for describing 3 as: "the issue is unsettled. Depending on how play proceeds, the white stones may eventually live or may eventually die". There is one - but it also applies to 2. [EDIT: figures 2 and 3 have been updated since this comment was written]
Ah! You are suggesting that black can make a ko threat against the live group in figure 3, and that white might choose to ignore the threat. True, but the usual convention in this case is to call the group alive, rather than unsettled.
Indeed.