HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hale@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Greg Hale)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: New Version of PCIGC
Date: 7 Sep 1992 02:39:54 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu


        Version 4.0 of PCIGC is now available for anonymous ftp from 
    ftp.u.washington.edu.  The file is pcigc40z.exe and is located in go/prog.  
    The file is a self extracting archive. Don't forget to set binary on the 
    ftp.
       This version fixes the Hoshi point display problem in 3.9 and adds 
    several new features: 

    1: use <Home>, <End>, <Page Up>, and <Page Down> keys to step through 
        a displayed game without having to hit Escape to switch windows. Use 
        Alt-<Page Up/Down> to step through moves by 10. This feature was 
        suggested by ychen. 
    2: a new parameter in the setup menu (Alt-S) allows the user to set which 
        character(s) PCIGC will use to indicate the end of line. Some people 
        were having problems with networks that didn't recognize ^J as the end 
        of line. You can select either Carriage Return (^M), Line Feed (^J) 
        (also called new line) (Default), or both characters to end each line.
        If terminal mode seems to work fine, but when you enter client mode 
        (F3) nothing seems to happen, try changing this parameter.
    3: Separate blocking of the 3 different "quiet" messages: shouts, logins, 
        and game announcements. This allows you to turn quiet off and see 
        shouts, for example, without seeing logins or games. 
    4: Automatic game number tracking, IF QUIET IS TURNED OFF. If you turn 
        quiet off, pcigc will take note of games ending and automatically 
        update the game number of the game you are observing. Right now, the 
        game number will only change when you receive the next move after the 
        change. This will happen when quiet is turned off even if you choose 
        not to have game announcements printed. 
    
    PLEASE NOTE 
        The above features mean that just because a PCIGC user does not have a 
    "Q" on his who report, does not mean that he will see all "quiet mode" 
    messages. It is possible that PCIGC is blocking them. I am interested in 
    knowing if the "Q"'s in who reports make any difference in the way people 
    interact with each other on igs.
    
    Please send bug reports to vader@holonet.net.
     
--
============================
Darth Vader, Lord of the Sith
vader@holonet.net
In Real Life: Edward Blair
============================

Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: jamieson@netcom.com (Davie Jamieson)
Subject: IshiStd<-->SmartGo Filter?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 18:39:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: Are there any IshiStd to SmartGo filter out there?
Keywords: filter convert smartgo

Is anyone aware of filters that will (at least partially) convert Ishi
Standard Format to Smart Go Format and vice-versa?  Many Faces of Go has
strong graphics, yet mgt is a better reader, so converting between the
two formats is desirable, depending on one's use.
From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: complexity of go
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:04:26 GMT
Reply-To: mark@.cv.hp.com
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)

In article <BuBt97.6z5@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, jfbuss@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Jonathan Buss) writes:
  ...
> In technical jargon, go is "exponential-time hard".  Roughly speaking,
> that means that to make the game twice as hard to analyze, it is only
> necessary to add a small amount to the board size.  ...

While the number of legal board positions goes up exponentially as the
board size increases, it does not follow that the difficulty in analyzing
the game follows the same progression.  For example, the method of securing
a corner does not change once the board size increases beyond a certain
minimum.  Because there is often a trade off between owning a corner and
having center influence, the value of taking a corner may decrease as the
board size (and hence center size) increases but even the complexity of
this decision will not go up exponentially with board size.

A more compelling demonstration of the inappropriatness of scaling go
complexity to board size (even linearly) is that go could be played on
an infinite board.  Admittingly without a time limit the game would never
end, but at any given instant territory could be evaluated as belonging
to one side or the other or neither and one side would have some lead
based on its relative amount of territory.  (The mechanics of the game
change less radically if you imagine the board to be a 19 wide column
of points with a bottom and no top rather than an unbounded plane).
This game is not infinitely more difficult to analyze than a 19x19 game
and is probably easier to analyze than say a 49x49 games.  Moreover, go
could be played on a 2x200 board which has more points than a 19x19
board (though fewer legal positions) but is relatively trivial to analyze
(an exercise left to the reader).

Mark Rowe             email: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Hewlett Packard       voice: (503) 750-3246
Corvallis, OR         FAX:   (503) 750-3788
From: bill@syl.syl.nj.nec.com (Bill Kanawyer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Does Princeton have a go club?
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:21:39 GMT
Reply-To: bill@syl.nj.nec.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: NEC Systems Laboratory, Inc.

I've just transfered to the Princeton New Jersey area from San Francisco.
I have heard that there is a Princeton go club, but I have been unable
to locate it through any of the official (security, dean's office, etc.)
university channels.

Does anyone out there in netland know of a go club in the greater Princeton
area? Or it there anyplace that people gather to play?

thanks,

Bill Kanawyer
Senior Software Engineer
NEC Systems Laboratory, Inc.
(609) 734-6112
bill@syl.nj.nec.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: achim@unibi.uni-bielefeld.de (Achim Flammenkamp)
Subject: Re: Complexity of Go / Number of legal positions
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 21:55:18 GMT
Organization: Universitaet Bielefeld

I enjoy the discussion about the complexity of Go/Chess also.
Some news ago the number of the legal Go positions was estimated
to 'a bit' less than 3^361.
This 'a bit' depends of course of the size of the board.
For the normal size of a 19x19 board the number is about 0.012*3^(19^2).
For a 9x9 board the number of positions is about 0.24*3^(9^2)  and
for a 13x13 board the number of legal positions is about 0.09*3^(13^2)
and for a 29x29 ~0.0001*3^(29^2) .

And this is such a typical position:
 @ @ @ . @ @ X X . . . @ . X @ @ @ . X
 . @ . . X @ X @ @ @ . X . . . X . @ @
 X X . X . @ @ X . @ X . @ . @ @ X @ @
 @ . @ @ X @ X . . @ @ @ @ . . X X @ @
 X . . . @ X X X @ X @ . . . @ . . @ .
 . . . @ X . @ . X . . X . X . @ X . .
 X @ @ X X X X . @ . @ @ X @ X @ X X X
 X @ X X . . X . X X X @ . . X X X X @
 X @ . . X @ . . . X @ X . @ X X X . @
 . @ X @ X X @ . X X . @ @ X . X @ X X
 @ X X X X . . @ X . . . @ . . X @ @ @
 . . @ @ . . X @ @ @ . . @ . X . @ . X
 @ @ . X @ @ X X . . @ X X @ @ . @ @ @
 . X X @ @ . @ X X X X @ @ . . . @ X X
 . . . X @ X . @ @ @ @ . @ . X . @ X .
 X . @ . . X X X . X X . X X X @ . . @
 X . X . X X . . X . . @ X @ . X @ X X
 . @ @ . . @ . X @ . X X X . @ X X @ .
 @ . X . . @ X . @ @ X X . X . @ @ X X

How about the correct endgame sequence? :-)
achim (1 dan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go,news.answers
From: cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: alternative goban topologies? (was: Go vs other b
Date: 5 Sep 92 09:37:32 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications

In article <37612@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> schraudo@cs.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes:
>wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) writes:
>
>>Hex go, (6 liberties), is quite fun. I have played this several times. Once
>>on a big board, but mostly on a 91-point board (similar to 9x9 go). It is
>
>>Tri-go, (3 liberties), I've not played (I think), but have fiddled with quite
>
>I am making PostScript boards for Hex and Tri in various sizes;

Hmmm...  one or the other file would be sufficient.  To play tri-go
on a hex grid, just play on the intersections.  There would still be a 
difference in the coordinate system, though.  Interesting to note the
interconnectedness of these two systems.

>
>Yes, and since tactics are far more dependent than strategy on the topology
>of the grid, I suspect that Tri-go feels far more different from regular go
>
>So how about Tetra-go (4 liberties), played in 3-D on a diamond lattice?
>A real "Tetraban" may be a bit unwieldy to make (never mind play on), but
>

Easier to bring into the physical world would be any of the three <two?>
grid types on a torus.
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: I0060301@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Klaus Blumberg)
Subject: meijin match
Organization: Technical University Braunschweig, Germany
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:49:17 GMT

 
 
in the first game of the meijin-match, played in amsterdam
on the 9th and 10th of september Otake Hideo (White)
resigned on the 160th move against defending champion
Kobayashi Koichi.
From: umhuang4@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Hui Huang)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Game file Too BIG!!
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:45:25 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

The file otake-kobayashi (including kibitz) is too big. The Xgoban crashes
when I try to play back the game. Any other programs or methods to rescue?
Thanks!



-- 
Hui Huang		Hui_Huang@UManitoba.ca
			Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
                        Phone: (204) 275-5278
From: asek@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: Thai Checkers & Thailand
Organization: University of Alaska
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 02:03:02 GMT


While in Thailand I observed a game played there (called "Thai Checkers)
which is a variant of English Draughts.  Instead of the three rows of
checkers pieces facing each other, only two rows face each other at the
start, or there are various sorts of handicapping arrangements for the
starting positions to make for an equalizing game.

Pieces then move as in ordinary checkers except that Kings move like
bishops and capture pieces in "rabbit jumps" (i.e. move thru an empty
diagonal and then jump the opponent piece).  Captures are mandatory for
both Kings and ordinary pieces, except that it seemed certain exceptions
existed for ordinary pieces not having to jump onto the back row to become
Kings.  (Language barriers prevented clear explanation of these positions).

The Thais generally play using bottle caps, turned up or turned down to
represent the pieces.  Kings are just two bottle caps piled onto each other.
The clink sound of bottle caps on concrete (table or sidewalk) is a rather
dramatic rendition of exclamation.  

I found books on this game (written in Thai) at a library and learned that
there are national championships in Thailand.  I did not see Chess or GO
played at all, nor could I locate any reference books on any sort of Chess
or GO in the few libraries I perused (Khorat), or in the bookstores.  I am
assuming that Thai Checkers is pretty much the national boardgame of Thailand.

Does this net reach Thailand?  Does anybody know of books in the English
Language that discuss Thai Checkers, or at least Checkers with the bishop
move (Dame?) for Kings?  

:=:


Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Subject: Re: Complexity of Go / Number of legal positions
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:52:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.215518.29400@unibi.uni-bielefeld.de>, achim@unibi.uni-bielefeld.de (Achim Flammenkamp) writes:
> I enjoy the discussion about the complexity of Go/Chess also.
> Some news ago the number of the legal Go positions was estimated
> to 'a bit' less than 3^361.
> This 'a bit' depends of course of the size of the board.
> For the normal size of a 19x19 board the number is about 0.012*3^(19^2).
> For a 9x9 board the number of positions is about 0.24*3^(9^2)  and
> for a 13x13 board the number of legal positions is about 0.09*3^(13^2)
> and for a 29x29 ~0.0001*3^(29^2) .

Well, don't keep us all in suspense. Where do those numbers come from?

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: payne@ecf.toronto.edu (PAYNE DENISE JOYCE)
Subject: Hex go
Reply-To: sizone!ken@ee.ryerson.ca
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 23:11:26 GMT


To add to the continuing discussion about alternate topologies...
 
Another way of describing the topology is not by the number of
connections for each intersection, but possibly by the shape inside, with
the intersections running along the vertices of the shapes.
 
This idea comes about simply as an easier way to describe in more complex
terms about how I played go on one of those silly Hex-Chess boards which
were a fad so many years ago. My parents bought a set and I still have the
board.
 
I dont know if this makes for a different board over tri-go.. well it does.
There are a number (I dont know how many) Hexagons on the board, and the
side of the board too is not straight edges, but edges of hexagons. My
brother and I played onthe intersections. Quite and interesting game, we
had to figure out before we started how to make eyes, knights moves,
long knights moves, dog necks, etc. Horses necks are not possibly in shape, but
other equivalent things are, as I just mentioned, but in number of jumps/inter
sections away only - I dont know how effective in play on this kind of baord
these are.
 
Some other things I wrote down while we played:
 
Well first off, each intersection has 3 liberties, not 2. So this isnt
"hex" go, its more like "hex-tri-go" or something. :^)
 
To make 2 eyes required 17 stones in the center, 8 stones on the side and
curiously, 8 stones at the "corners". Side intersections are very strange -
one intersection has 3 liberties, while the next one down (and "out" to
the side) has only 2 - a very compromising place to play.
 
As well, the corner has 2 such intersections in a row, even worse. 

Extending from simple atari outward gives 2 liberties, not three. This
translates into curious ladders where the opponent can circle or wind you
back into your own stones, without letting you form eyes. Almost certain
death. 

It only takes 6 stones to surround a 5 stone wall.

We have yet to play again and discover more subtleties about the game, but
its very difficult to play. Once you are even slightly outnumbered in
helping stones in an area, you are at a great disadvantage. Being forced
against the side is certain death as well.
 
/kc
Ken Chase
sizone!ken@ee.ryerson.ca
via payne@ecf.toronto.edu
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: phjq762@chpc.utexas.edu (Rodney Kinney)
Subject: Re: xigc (was Re: Go Server (and Meijin game))
Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18:37:06 GMT

In article <19582rINN3l3@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Cano) writes:
>What I would like is to be able to (in addition
>to the above xigc feature) do is simply play the moves of
>a game I'm playing or observing back and forth - this is
>especially useful when I begin observing a game that has
>already gone 80+ moves :^)

	I have to agree that this is one heck of a desirable feature.  So
much do I like being able to do this that I often consider forsaking graphics
altogether, and just using the ascii client, which seems to be the only one 
with this capability.
-- 
ZZ
ZZ
quit
exit
Newsgroups: rec.games.go,rec.games.chess,gnu.chess,rec.games.programmer
From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Fumiko and computer go programs
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:30:57 GMT

In article <Bu2Mtx.Eyq@ecf.toronto.edu> sizone!ken@ee.ryerson.ca writes:

>Are there any 19x19 go programs? Or even a 13x13 where the computer can
>actually play a respectable game at my level? (I think I am rapidly improving,

An article in the recent Computer Chess Reports said that the best
machines "play a recognizable but not yet truly competent game of Go,
and especially for isolated beginning players are no better than no
opponent at all."  The programs are: Many Faces of Go, Nemesis, and
Star of Poland.

The author, Milton N. Bradley (1 Dan), recommends using a competent
primer along with study of tesuji and Tsume Go problems, which is where
the programs are weakest.

You can get CCR as well as Go machines and books from ICD at 800-645-4710.

--Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: jfbuss@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Jonathan Buss)
Subject: Re: complexity of go
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.001154.23020@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> mark@.cv.hp.com writes:

>I haven't seen any discussion of how the complexity of Go is affected by the
>size of board.  Is a 19x19 game twice as complex as a 9x9 game?  Four times?
>Sixteen times?  Does whatever scale you use also apply for 13x13 or 25x25
>games?  Just how complex would a 99x99 game be?  (probably not much more
>complex than a 25x25).

In technical jargon, go is "exponential-time hard".  Roughly speaking,
that means that to make the game twice as hard to analyze, it is only
necessary to add a small amount to the board size.  The exact amount is
not known, but for the purposes of explanation I'll suppose that 9x9
is twice as hard as 6x6.  Then 12x12 is twice as hard as 9x9, 15x15 is
twice as hard as that, etc.  Extrapolating gives that 19x19 is more
than eight times as hard as 9x9.

And 99x99 is 2^25 = 33554432 times as hard as 24x24.

Of course, my precise numbers are silly.  The point is that go gets
*much* harder as the board size increases.

Chess and checkers are also exponential-time hard.  They seem easier
than go only because of their small board size.

Jonathan Buss
From: jin@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Xuegen Jin -Luzzi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Tong Yang Securities Cup'91
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:28:29 GMT
Organization: LRSM, University of Pennsylvania


Hi, everybody:

	I will stop posting the Tong Yang Securities Cup'91 Final 

(previously translated as Dong Yang Bond Cup) games here, as I have 

sent them to milton.u.washinton.edu ftp site (its filename is 

tongyang91.sh.Z). So, please get those games from there, if you are 

interested. I will also, if I find time, put the 6th NEC Super Go games 

there later. 

	Sorry for the inconvenience.


hurston (1d)
From: hoffman@cmf.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Hoffman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: One last rant on game complexity
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:40:24 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.go
Organization: Connection Machine Facility, NRL


... which says nothing about the difficulty of creating effective general
mechanisms for playing a game well...
Xref: sparky rec.games.go:1832 rec.games.board:8560 rec.games.chess:7010
From: kurtovic@gold.cchem.berkeley.edu (Zoran Kurtovic)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Complexity - Ideas
Date: 8 Sep 1992 03:26:46 GMT
Organization: Dept of Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: gold.cchem.berkeley.edu

In article <NICKH.92Sep7154655@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>In article <NICKH.92Sep7145835@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>, I mistakenly wrote:
>
>   A more efficient representation is to specify the piece on each
>   square, giving 64^12 positions (12 different pieces: white and
>   black rook, knight, bishop, queen, king, pawn) of which many are
>   impossible (exactly one king of each colour, only 16 pieces of each
>   colour). 64^12 ~= 10^21.
>
>Of course the key number here is not 64^12 but 12^64 (~10^69).
>
>It is better to specify the positions of the two kings and then give
>the other squares in order (reducing the requirement to 64*63*(10^62)
>(= 4e65). I reguesstimate the number of possible positions as 10^60.
>(of which maybe 10^20 are possible without cooperation between the two
>sides).  Sorry 'bout that.
>
>   Nick

I beleive the estimate of 10^60 possible positions is much too high.  There
are many constraints that you aren't considering.  For instance, once you
have chosen 32 peices the rest of the squares must be empty.  Also stuff
like the maximum number of black knights addes to the number of black 
pawns is 10, 2 plus eight possible promotions.  Another big limitation 
is that both kings can't be in check, or one king can only be in check 
twice if the two checks could occure simultaneously with a double check move.
	There are many constraints in the pawn structure.  If white has
2 a pawns, along with one b,c,d pawn each, he must have captured at least
4 black peices, and they can't be on the board.  Also one of the a pawns
must be on the sixth or seventh ranks (think about the capturing involved).
	Another twist is that if a players b and d pawns haven't moved, his
queens bishop couldn't have moved.  This implies that a bishop of that color
somewhere else on the board must have been promoted, which means it has to
have been promoted on a correctly colored square.  This makes me think of
even more constraints, if one player has promoted a peice, he must have
made a capture.
	To sum it up, the upper bound on positions is 10^32 with the vast
majority of them illegal.  I'd guess that 10^20 would be the number of
possible positions it would be possible to acheive even with complete
cooperation between the two sides.
	I've missed the thread of this discussion and I don't know what
the debate is about, so this might not be important.  Anyway, 

	Zoran

Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: payne@ecf.toronto.edu (PAYNE DENISE JOYCE)
Subject: tri go!
Reply-To: sizone!ken@ee.ryerson.ca
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:51:29 GMT


OOPS! I guess what I posted about before was exactly what Tri Go is! For
some reason I thought it was different!
 
Whats the shape of a "typical" tri-go board? (at the edges) - does it have
6 "jagged" sides? I guess it would have to, to enclose proper hexagons
on the sides.
 
interesting game, and I have a board for it now!
 
Are there any go games with differing numbers of liberties per intersection
int he CENTER of the board - say "flat bucky-ball go" or something, with
pentagons in the middle of hexagons or the like? (Oh wait, hexagons can
lie flat, but not curved, which is why they need the pentagons) - what
about pentagonal go?
 
Now that we're talking about 2 dimentional topologies and I've mentioned
flattened 3D topology - what about toroidal go or dodecahedral go or
the like? Well, I guess dodecahedral go would be pretty boring with a small
number of intersections, but what about playing on a buckyball spheroid? I
guess you'd need a computer, but it could be done!
 
What about toroidal go, where the sides of a normal go board all loop
onto eachother? (it could even be played that way, on a normal board,
just keeping in mind that the sides continue onto the other side of the
board!) 

Has anyone tried this? 

Someone should write some flexible code to handle playing go on a computer
between two players on user defined topologies...
 
/kc
Ken Chase
sizone!ken@ee.ryerson.ca
via payne@ecf.toronto.edu
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.games.go