HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish)
Subject: Re: Chinese counting
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Victoria Uni. of Wellington, NZ.
	<Bz7t8M.4C1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Dec15.144023.412@otago.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:30:28 GMT

Barry writes:

>> 
>> I've always regretted that the ending has so many vagaries about it.
>> Of course in prctice problems seldom arise, but the rules for ending
>> and counting seem to be out of line with the rest of the rules, which
>> are amazingly simple.  I know no-one is really interested, but my modest
>> proposal for logical counting rules is: just count the stones on the board;
>> ignore the spaces, ignore issues of life and death and seki.  Then normally
>> your score will be the same as under Chinese rules but minus 2 for each
>> independent group; thus you get a 2 point reward for connecting groups.
>> 
>> Understand, I'm a mathematician, this is the sort of thing I worry about.
>> 
>> Andrew Dabrowski	Indiana U	Bloomington
>> 
>> 
>
>These rules were actually used in China for some time.  I expect that people
>found them a bit cumbersome and so looked for short cuts to speed up the
>counting. 
>
>The Japanese counting system has the disadvantage that the long winded method
>changes the result but the Chinese system doesn't.  If one chooses Chinese
>counting then you can agree the game is finished but if you can't agree on 
>life/death then you just play on until all everything is absolutely clear.
>
>It is not clear whether counting just stones is more elegant than counting
>stones plus empty surrounded points.
>
>Barry Phease

Huh? I must be stupid, but how does this work? Given the following
game on a 5x5 board, shouldn't counting just stones result is a draw?

+--+--7--8--+        i.e. the final position is: +--+--@--O--+
|  |  |  |  |                                    |  |  |  |  |
+--+--5--6--+                                    +--+--@--O--+
|  |  |  |  |                                    |  |  |  |  | 
+--+--1--2--+                                    +--+--@--O--+ 
|  |  |  |  |                                    |  |  |  |  | 
+--+--3--4--+                                    +--+--@--O--+
|  |  |  |  |                                    |  |  |  |  | 
+--+--9--10-+                                    +--+--@--O--+

There are the same number of groups for both players.

Michael.
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: Oliver Schoett <schoett@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
Subject: Re: Chinese counting
	<Bz7t8M.4C1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Inst. fuer Informatik, Technische Univ. Muenchen, Germany
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:12:46 GMT

In article <Bz7t8M.4C1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
dabrowsa@cheyenne.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew Dabrowski) writes:

 > I've always regretted that the ending has so many vagaries about it.
 > Of course in prctice problems seldom arise, but the rules for ending
 > and counting seem to be out of line with the rest of the rules, which
 > are amazingly simple.

There are no vagaries if you stick to the rule that dead stones must
be killed explicitly, i. e. only territory free of opponent's stones
is counted.  Perfect for computers and mathematicians.

It is only the abbreviated play mode that tries to end a game when
there is `no doubt' about all stones' status that causes difficulties.


Oliver Schoett     Inst. f. Informatik (H2), Technische Univ. M"unchen
                   Postfach 20 24 20,     8000 M"unchen 2,     Germany
schoett@informatik.tu-muenchen.de    phone +49 89 2105-2399  fax -8207
From: dxb105@huxley.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Chinese counting
Date: 17 Dec 1992 03:06:51 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.3.32

In article <BzC4Is.38E@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz
(Michael Norrish) writes:

Andrew Dabrowski writes:
> I know no-one is really interested, but my modest
> proposal for logical counting rules is: just count the stones on the
> board; ignore the spaces, ignore issues of life and death and seki. 
> Then normally your score will be the same as under Chinese rules but
> minus 2 for each independent group; thus you get a 2 point reward for
> connecting groups.

A (perhaps justly) little appreciated formulation of go is that the
winner is the player who kills the most enemy stones. This gives
results close to the system you propose, one difference is that some
jigo-like games have no result (like a triple ko). I like the
formulation because (1) you can shock players by telling them the real
objective of go is to kill enemy stones, and (2) it gives you the right
idea of what a moyo is: a killing ground for notional enemy stones (if
they can play there and live it's not your territory). I guess the game
can be ended by a player if he has just answered an opponent's simple
(single stone) suicide play with one of his own.

Barry Phease writes:
> It is not clear whether counting just stones is more elegant than
> counting stones plus empty surrounded points.

No? It certainly sounds more elegant to me, almost self-evidently.
Surely eliminating those extra words in the definition of the score
makes it more elegant?

Michael Norrish writes:

> Huh? I must be stupid, but how does this work? Given the following
> game on a 5x5 board, shouldn't counting just stones result is a draw?
>
> +--+--7--8--+        i.e. the final position is: +--+--@--O--+
> |  |  |  |  |                                    |  |  |  |  |
> +--+--5--6--+                                    +--+--@--O--+
> |  |  |  |  |                                    |  |  |  |  | 
> +--+--1--2--+                                    +--+--@--O--+ 
> |  |  |  |  |                                    |  |  |  |  | 
> +--+--3--4--+                                    +--+--@--O--+
> |  |  |  |  |                                    |  |  |  |  | 
> +--+--9--10-+                                    +--+--@--O--+
> 
> There are the same number of groups for both players.

Yes, but the game isn't over until both players pass. Nobody is going to
be silly enough to pass when there are free points to be made filling in
their own territory. The result here is 13 points for black, 8 for
white, compared with the Japanese result 10-5, or the Chinese result
15-10. In practice, of course, players wouldn't bother with filling in
their own territories.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger (2 dan)                           dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au

`
From: rem@public.BTR.COM (Robert E. Maas  rem@btr.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: naming conventions
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:35:26 GMT
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

Regarding "all the good moves have Japanese names": There's a simple tesuji
which I call the "double-cut trick" since I've never seen any Japanese or
even English language name for it in any book. It's when the opponent
has a single on the second line under your protrusion into his line
of stones on the third line. You sacrifice a stone on one side of his
2nd-line stone, then if he ataris it you cut atari on the other side.
(If he connects on the other side you just extend on the original side.)
Does anybody know any traditional name for this, or shall I continue using
my own name for this and maybe eventually getting people worldwide to use
my name? Here's an example:

 - - - O O O O O - - -
 - - - X X O X X - - -
 - - - b a X c e - - -
 - - - - d - - - - - -
 (edge of board here)

White cuts at a, Black ataris at b, White counter-ataris at c, Black
captures at d, White extends at e (which is an atari in this case, but
that's moot to the point of the tesuji which was to get an effective
cut at either a or c depending on black's response to a).
From: viczhu@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (yi zhu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Sino-Japan Meijin Match
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:57:10 GMT
Reply-To: viczhu@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (yi zhu)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: viczhu@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu


 Anyone knows the result of the match above? Please post!
 Thanx in advance.

Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: msiivola@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Matti Siivola)
Subject: Re: Answer to problem
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:22:53 GMT

In <1992Dec17.144429.19902@irisa.fr> giordano@irisa.fr (Jean-Yves Giordano) writes:


>Here is the answer to the following problem :

>_______________________________
> . . . . . . . # . . . . . # #|
> . . . . . O . O # . . # . # #|      1) There's no other stone on the board
> . . . . . . . O # # . # # O O|
> . . . . . . . . O O O O O . .|      2) White to kill
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .|
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|      3) What's the size of the board : 17, 19 or 21 ?


>Quite a tough one, and difficult to explain with diagrams. I hope a made no mistake.


> . . . . . . . # 4 1 3 5 8 # #
> . . . . . O . O # . 6 # 7 # #
> . . . . . . . O # # 2 # # O O
> . . . . . . . . O O O O O . .       w9 takes at 7 : two stage ko
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

>As there is no other stone on the board, the threats have to be
>found on the first line...

> . . . . . . 9 # # O O O 3 2 5
> . . . . . O 6 O # 7 # # a 1 4
> . . . . . . . O # # # # # O O
> . . . . . . . . O O O O O . .       w8 at 2, w10 takes 2nd ko at a. 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


> . . . . 9 1 # # # 7 4 6 # O 5
> . . . . 2 O O O # # # # O 3 O
> . . . . . . . O # # # # # O O       w8 takes 5.
> . . . . . . . . O O O O O . .     
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .11 3 1 # # # 9 6 8 # O 7
. .12 4 2 O O O # # # # O 5 O
. . . . . . . O # # # # # O O       w10 takes 7.
. . . . . . . . O O O O O . .     
. . . . . . . . . . . . . O .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

> . . . 6 # # # # # # 4 3 # O 2
> . . 8 1 O O O O # # # # 7 # O
> . . . . . . . O # # # # # O O       
> . . . . . . . . O O O O O . .       w5 takes 2, w9 wins the ko taking at 3.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . 6 # # # # # # # 4 3 # O 2
. . 8 1 O O O O O # # # # 7 # O
. . . . . . . . O # # # # # O O       
. . . . . . . . . O O O O O . .       w5 takes 2, w9 wins the ko taking at 3.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
         
> . . 1 # # # # # # # # O . O .
> . 3 # O O O O O # # # # O . O
> 4 . 2 . . . . O # # # # # O O       
> . . . . . . . . O O O O O . .       
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
         
. . 1 # # # # # # # # # O . O .
. 3 # O O O O O O # # # # O . O
4 . 2 . . . . . O # # # # # O O       
. . . . . . . . . O O O O O . .       
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . O .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

>At this point, as you can verify, b is alive if the size of the board is 
>17 or 21. If it is 19, b is dead. Point 2) says white kills, hence the 
>size is 19.

Now black (#) is alive unless the size of the board is 20

>Merry Christmas.

>J-Yves (4k, 5 at this period of the year)

Matti Siivola, 4 dan
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: ralf@smab.se (Ralf Lundberg)
Subject: Go programs for the Mac: Info wanted on Go Intellect.
Organization: Saab Missiles AB, RLD-Gbg, Sweden
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 15:24:30 GMT


According to the FAQ in this newsgroup, Go Intellect seems to be the
strongest program for the Macintosh.

It is said that that Go Intellect can be obtained from the author:
        Dr Ken Chen
        4407 Oak Lane
        Charlotte, NC 28213

If anyone knows a faster way to reach him (email, fax, or even phone),
please let me know.


Has anyone used this program? Give your comments on:
        Strength
        Interface       (is it graphical)
        Are there extra Options/Tools?
        What is the prize?
        Do you like it?
(If you comment the program, don't forget to tell your strength.)


        Ralf Lundberg (4 kyu)
        ralf@smab.se
From: jansteen@cwi.nl (Jan van der Steen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: naming conventions
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:40:19 GMT

lifq274@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu writes:

 > Regarding all this naming stuff, I must tell this story:

 > I heard about a player who, at some point in his studies of GO would
 > not play any move unless he knew the Japanese name for it.  Everyone
 > thought it was silly, but it turned out that all the good moves had
 > names, and all the useless moves did not.

Very interesting approach, I'll try it out :).

Which also reminds me of another phenomenom:

When studying a Go game (let's say a pro-pro game) one can test
the perception of the game by trying to replay it by hard. The moves
which slipped your mind most likely were the ones which you didn't fully
understand.

 > It seems to me that borrowing words from other languages is not such a
 > bad idea.  I mean in the US we say 'taco', not 'thin flour bread-like
 > substance with ground meat and cheese'.

Agree, the reason being that the word 'taco' actually is a concept for
the dish you described so well. When there is concensus about the
meaning of the word 'taco' why not use it, agree.

But in Go all those words for concepts like 'miai', 'honte' and
'shimari' are useless in conversation once one of the participants
involved doesn't know/understand them.  For example, when explaining Go
to beginners we need translations of those concepts in an
understandable language (most likely the native language) to ensure the
best possible communication.

Once someone understands a concept, he will be urged start using it
since it will save him a lot of typing/talking:

			  'taco'

			    vs

		thin flour bread-like substance
		  with ground meat and cheese

 > Let's just use the words in Japanese like we always have, and use the
 > translations for Chinese speakers -- what's the big deal?
 >
 >					--Jason
 >					--1 kyu Go player
 >					--4 dan linguist (really)

	Jan van der Steen
	3 dan Go player
	NR linguist

-- 
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
     Jan van der Steen                 jansteen@cwi.nl
     Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI)
     Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From: asya@remarque.berkeley.edu (That's Mistress Asya)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ethics question
Date: 16 Dec 1992 02:09:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Keywords: ethics, laws, agreements

In article <1992Dec15.212911.18466@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) writes:
>>This is total BS. ACBL has no such policy. In the Midwest or anywhere else.

>You may be correct about the ACBL, however it is the policy
>of our district in the last few months. And according to the 

Your district doesn't make policy.  They only enforce what the Board of
Directors, the National Laws Committee or the National Appeals Committee
decides.

>I can cite numerous upon numerous examples during the last
>couple regionals where anyone and everyone who was unable
>to provide information to the opponents as to what their
>partnership agreements are pertaining to any given auction,

You say.

>may or may not happen to be. Now I didn't attend these tournaments

Oh...

>and have no first hand knowledge/experience of the events,

So this is all total hearsay from people who feel they were damaged
by these rulings, and gee, just might be exaggerating ever so slightly
what law/rule/principle was sited as the cause for the penalty.

>but after hearing these stories from my many friends who were 
>"victimized" by this new law, I was quick to check out whats 

Again, there is *no* *new* *law*

>happening with some local regional and national directors I know.

Ok, tell me which ones, because I don't know of many totally
incompetent directors there, and since they get the same mailings
detailing all laws and procedure changes that I do, I would like
to know which directors out there can't read.

>This is not BS. This is not a joke. This is real life.

This is your illusion of what real life is.

>The directors say, its out of our hands, we just carry
>out what the rules committee wants us to implement.

What "rules committee"? There is no such governing body!
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: ethics
Date: 15 Dec 1992 22:24:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec14.222310.29611@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, tim@theory.lcs.mit.edu (timothy m wright) writes:
> West is an LM who should know better, East is a relative novice and pickup
> partner.  At a sectional swiss, 7th round, you sit South and pick up and
> hear:  

> None vul; W deals
> N    E    S    W     Tx
> --   --   --   3H    AKQ9
> p    p               KQxx
>                      AKx

> You ask East about their agreements on preempts, and are told that they have
> none; their card is sparsely filled out (NT openings, limit raises, weak 2s,
> and leads, nothing else).  You bid 3NT, to play, and wind up in 5S after
> poartner poulls to 4s, and shows one ace after RKC blackwood.

> West [held]:

> ---
> 876xxx
> Axxx
> xxx

> 1) is a system that allows first-seat 3-level preempts like this systemically
> too destructive for the ACBL?

Nope.  However, your description of the situation makes 3H appear psychic rather
than systemic.  (In particular, it sounds like an action by a player who's given
up hope and has no respect for his partner.)

> 2) assuming that this sort of preempting style is tolerated, what recourse
> do I have when not informed about it?

Either the opponents misinformed you or West psyched.  In either case, you're
supposed to call the director as soon as you finish playing the hand.

If the director decides that there was an agreement and you were damaged by the
misinformation, then you should get an adjusted score.  

Psyches are not illegal, but frequent psyches may create de facto agreements
that must be disclosed, and psychic controls are illegal.  To help monitor this
touchy area, the ACBL requires that psyches be reported.  (In non-nationally-rated
events, psyches are supposed to be reported orally to the director.  In
nationally-rated events, the team making the psyche is supposed to file a written
report.)

-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How would you rule?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:06:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1gt1qnINNiul@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk>, mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:
> From thomaso@com.centerline Fri Dec 18 16:49:29 1992
> > Here is an auction I had with a partner once:
> 
> 	Me	Partner
> 	1H	2S(a)
> 	3C(b)   4D(c)
> 	4H(d)
> 
> > (a) We had agreed to play this as a game-forcing raise in hearts.
> > I forgot, and failed to alert it.
> 
> > (b) Bidding naturally, I bid my second suit.  Partner alerted it,
> > and described the bid's correct meaning - shortness in clubs.
> 
> No problem so far.

Yes there is.  Apparently Thomas realized he had failed to alert 2S as soon
as his partner alerted and explained 3C.  At that moment, Thomas should have
called the director and supplied the missing alert [Law 75D1].  The director
should then have allowed Thomas' LHO to change his pass over 3C [Law 21B1].

Note that Thomas' partner was prohibited from pointing out Thomas' failure to
alert until the auction ended [Law 75D2], but Thomas was required to point out
his own failure to alert as soon as he became aware of it [Law 75D1].  That's
because Thomas' partner already had unauthorized information, so the only
effect of Thomas' immediate correction would be to correct the misinformation
given to the opponents.

Of course, Thomas and his partner would still both be in possession of
unauthorized information, and thus both prohibited from chosing "from among
logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over
another by the extraneous information" [Law 16A].

> ...
> > They are not allowed to 
> > ask, "If the 2S bid was natural, what would the 4D bid show?"

Sure they are.  Why not?  They're entitled to know anything that they think
is relevant about your agreements.

> ...

In any case, the director (and, subsequently, the committee) should have been
able to dispose of the misinformation question pretty easily.  If Thomas had
pointed out his failure to alert when he should have, the misinformation
question would have vanished altogether.  The tough issue for the director
and committee should have been the unauthorized information.
-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Results of the Dutch Meesterklasse/1e Division Teams of 4.
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:26:28 GMT

Can anybody in The Netherlands post the results of the Dutch Meesterklasse and 
1st division? Thanks in advance,

Henk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.                                Phone: 1-214-708-6192
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Home:  1-214-283-6687
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: asya@remarque.berkeley.edu (That's Mistress Asya)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: More ignorance of laws and proprieties Re: Ethics question
Date: 16 Dec 1992 02:01:03 GMT
Organization: The Great White North
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Keywords: this post is a flame of garbage

In article <1992Dec14.225451.24791@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) froths:

>To clarify further, in the midwest, for an expert player to claim
>ignorance of an auction is an automatic procedural penalty. Unless

Lots of garbage like this...

>You will receive a procedural penalty, period. If you must,
...
>think it should mean so and so and that is how I'm taking it.
>And yes, if you are wrong, the opponents may still be protected,
...
>Playing together ONCE qualifies you as an established partnership.
...
>And you will then be held responsible for ALL bidding sequences.
...
>If you are playing together as a partnership, you will receive
>a procedural penalty for any auction that you cannot explain.
...
>Maybe harsh, but that is what directors have been instructed to do.

More bull.

>Consider yourselves forewarned. For a partnership, not having
>an agreement is not sufficient to avoid any responsibility.
>Partnerships are now held responsible for having agreements.
>Not having an agreement will result in a procedural penalty.

Dear Rob:

When you decided to post this drivel, the following message should have
appeared on your screen:

This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world.  Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
dollars to send everywhere.  Please be sure you know what you are doing.

Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]

Rob, at this point you should have said "n".

If your system did not in fact warn you that you would be wasting everyone's
time and money with your ignorance, then by all means, I would be more than
happy to contact your sys admin and explain to him/her the need for such
a warning as far as posting from your account is concerned.

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge