GreenRoot comments on Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go - Less Wrong

40 Post author: GreenRoot 21 August 2010 02:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (145)

Comments (145)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: GreenRoot 22 August 2010 05:27:07PM *  0 points [-]

What's your playing strength in Go? The article reads a bit like it's either too much targeted at people without understanding of go or is written without by someone with a playing strength >5 kyu?

I'm about 12k on KGS. I definitely aimed the article at people who knew nothing about go, but I think it's also interesting that you could tell that I'm not a very strong player myself. I would be interested to know if you have found generalizable lessons which only came after you achieved a deeper understanding of the game.

But if the two players disagree, the solution is simply to resume play. That true for some Go rule sets but it isn't true for Japanese style rules.

According the wikipedia article on rule sets' treatment of the end, all the sets actually say that you should play things out, capturing dead stones. I guess I've only ever played with the more convenient practice of mutual agreement about dead stones. It happens this way in every club and internet server I've ever played at, even when using Japanese rules. So in this sense, the actual experience of playing go does reinforce the idea that new evidence is the arbiter of conflicting beliefs.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 August 2010 11:38:40AM 1 point [-]

In practice when the situation can be played out one usually plays it out till the opponent is convinced. There are however situations where you can't play it out.

Under Japanese rules certain local shapes are per definition dead when the game ends. Bent for in the Corner is one example. If there are nonremoveable ko threads on the board those shapes don't die in Chinese rules or other rule sets that require playing out.

Comment author: TobyBartels 23 August 2010 03:54:23AM *  1 point [-]

According the wikipedia article on rule sets' treatment of the end, all the sets actually say that you should play things out, capturing dead stones.

No, it's only the Wikipedia rule set which says this. Then the article says

Rule 9 differs significantly from the various systems for ending the game used in practice

So none of the rule sets used in practice agree with Wikipedia's Rule 9.

That true for some Go rule sets but it isn't true for Japanese style rules.

This is from lower down on Wikipedia (more there):

However, under Japanese rules, the game is already considered to have ended. The players attempt to ascertain which groups of stones would remain if both players played perfectly from that point on. (These groups are said to be alive.) In addition, this play is done under rules in which kos are treated differently from ordinary play. If the players reach an incorrect conclusion, then they both lose.

So if neither player is good at distinguishing live from dead, then both may lose! (So much for a zero-sum game.) I am not fond of this feature of the Japanese rules; I much prefer the idea that one solves disagreements by playing them out. But then I am an even weaker player than you, so what do I know? (^_^)

Comment author: timtyler 23 August 2010 06:12:57PM *  1 point [-]

I much prefer the idea that one solves disagreements by playing them out. But then I am an even weaker player than you, so what do I know? (^_^)

Plenty of stronger players feel much the same way. The Japanese rules do mean the game is sometimes over quicker, though - since they avoid filling dame.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 August 2010 12:24:58PM 0 points [-]

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/lai_go_chinese_strategy.pdf is a fine report that deals with transfering Go concept to thinking about military strategy.

Strategy is about thinking "What should I do?", while rationality is about thinking "What should I believe?". I think the two questions are similar enough that one can transfer a lot of what David Lei writes.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit