HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: li@bellman.aa.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: SOS!  IGS is in dangeous.
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:34:30 GMT
Reply-To: li@aa.washington.edu
Organization: U of Wash Dept of Aeronautics and Astronautics
NNTP-Posting-Host: bellman.aa.washington.edu


Enjoy playing and kibitzing on IGS? Yes! IGS is a wonderful place for go 
fans from all over the world to play Go and to meet new friends. This 
wonderful place will be GONE very soon if we don't do anything. Why? The 
root on  128.32.201.46  decided to shut down IGS in three weeks :-( :-( 
because some bad potatoes abuse the IGS too much. They sent too many junk 
emails to root to complain everything on IGS that make root mad and some 
people used obscene language to harass other players. Most of us think IGS 
is guaranteed, but it isn't. IGS' managers work for it voluntarily. They 
got very few thanks but lots of trouble. Even they find a new site for IGS, 
the problems still exist. Let's work together to save IGS (if we can). 

 1) Behave oneself (Okay, It doesn't work for some people.:-)) ;
 2) Registration (It may cause extra work for system managers) ;
 3) ......

Please make your suggestion/contribution to save IGS. We can send our 
discussion to system managers. Hope that will help us to have a clean 
IGS. 

BTW, don't send any email to root.



UFO[NR] at U of Washington, Seattle.
From: mdobbins@asns.tredydev.Unisys.COM (Michael Dobbins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: FWD: GO RULES FOR BEGINNERS (rec.games.go)
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:05:10 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin, PA

In article <C1EnMo.2vo@cs.vu.nl> ben@cs.vu.nl (Bruschke BAH) writes:
>smuench@i61s7.ira.uka.de (Stefan Muench) writes:
>>This holds only true if your goal is to win the game. I've read a book about
>>GO which says that it's at first a nice game with philosophical aspects, as
>>most of the readers in this group know. It also says that for some GO players
>>it's not necessary or even bad attitude to count the points in the end if
>>they've had a nice time. It's not bad to win, but that shouldn't be your only
>>intention to play GO...
>
>Wow, that's a great excuse whenever a 'good' computer go program is beaten by 
>a average human go player again.

Now, let's not be too cynical.  Go has a long history and many have
used it as a meditation aid or as a model to study various types of
stratagies.  To only view go as a contest between two people with one
winner and one loser, is to lose sight of the full go experience.

Here is an interesting exersize to try: play someone an even game, it
doesn't matter the relative strength differences of the players or who
gets black or white. The winner must win by no more than a set number
of points or no one wins. The points could be different for each player
depending upon the skill level of that player.  The more skilled the
player the smaller the win range.  Beginners should use 10-20 points on
down to 1-2 for dan level.  A game played this way will give a better
feel for balance and beauty as opposed to the cut throat feel a normal
game may often give.

Mike, AGA 6k
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:27:50 EST
From: <GDH3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Territory v. Points

Reading some of the recent postings, it seems that many participants
are unaware of the near equivalence of the two counting systems.  This
near equivalence results because, if an equal number of black and white
stones are played during the game, then, when the dead stones are placed
within their territories for counting, the Japanese style points differ
from the Chinese style territory by the same amount for black and white.
This also assumes that all dame and ko have been filled in, and that
there are no seki.  The main way in which it is possible for the two
results to differ is if one player passes more than the other, resulting
in fewer stones played by one player.  In Japanese style games it is
to your advantage to pass if the opponent makes an empty threat in the
end game, in Chinese style, no advantage.  The effect of a seki might be
serious if one player has more stones involved in the seki than the other.
Dame and ko would usually be filled in alternately by black and white and
thus have no important effect.  In conclusion, in the great majority of
games, the Chinese and Japanese scores will differ by only one or two
points, and a game where the counting method decides the outcome is quite
rare.            Mitchell Timin
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: osman@hannah.enet.dec.com ("Eric, dtn 235-8439, DSG1-2/D8  22-Jan-1993 1130")
Subject: FWD: GO RULES FOR BEGINNERS (rec.games.go)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 08:30:36 PST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA29177; Fri, 22 Jan 93 08:30:39 -0800
X-Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AB00981; Fri, 22 Jan 93 08:30:35 -0800
X-Received: from hannah.enet; by decwrl.enet; Fri, 22 Jan 93 08:30:36 PST
X-To: gogroup@hannah.enet.dec.com
X-Apparently-To: rec.games.go.usenet


I think it's great that  <GDH3@psuvm.psu.edu> has compiled complete rules.
However, I have some corrections and suggestions.  First, here's the ones
s/he posted:

              Complete Rules of the Game of GO
 
1. Stones are played alternately on any free intersection.
 
2. Stones never change position, but they can be captured.
 
3. Stones of one color that are connected live or die as a
group.  A connection is only horizontal or vertical to the
adjoining intersection.  ("die" equals "captured")  A group
may consist of just one stone.
 
4. A group is dead when none of its stones adjoins an empty
intersection.  (again horizontally or vertically only)  The
captive stones are held for use in the scoring at the end.
 
5. A stone may not be played where a prior configuration of
the whole board would be reproduced.
 
6. A stone may not be played where it, or the group of
which it would be part, would be dead according to rule 4.,
except if an enemy group is killed by such placement.
 
7. The object of the game is to form unkillable groups that
occupy more of the board than your opponent's groups.
 
8. A player may pass. (i.e., not place a stone)  The game
ends when both players pass consecutively, and are in
agreement as to the status of all the groups on the board.
 
9. Scoring: Each player receives one point for each empty
intersection that is completely surrounded by his color.
(i.e., there is no path from the intersection to any enemy
stone, without crossing a friendly stone.)  There is an
additional point for each captive stone, both those removed
earlier, and those "dead on the board".  "Dead on the
board" means that, at the end of the game, the group is not
an unkillable group, and is within an enemy unkillable
group.





And now for my comments:

5)	It needs to be made clear that "board reproduction" includes same
	player on the move.  It *is* legal to reproduce a previous board
	position if it's the *other* person's turn.  (Can someone give us
	a pretty simple example of where this is important?)

7)	Wrong object!  The object isn't to to occupy more of the board with your
	groups than your opponent's groups !  The object is to get more points.
	Remember, points are prisoner's plus *empty* space that you own because
	your opponent can't make an unkillable group there.

	For example, imagine a hypothetical game where lots of the board is
	filled with live black *stones* but white has more territory and less
	stones.  White wins, even though black has occupied more of the board
	with his groups.

Thanks.

/Eric
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: SOS!  IGS is in dangeous.
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:35:56 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1993Jan27.120831.18264@klaava.Helsinki.FI> olounela@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Olli Lounela) writes:
>stupid...  I begin to wonder just when are we going to see the end of
>people who presume to know what *other* people want...  never, I guess.
 
Yup, never - it's a fact of life that we (eh, whoever, ifever, manages
the server) have to come to grips with - it won't go away.
 
A rather dim view of people, but that's life. To soften things a bit,
I'd like to believe it's a small minority.
 
>I really think that the IGS is a Good Thing,
 
YES!
 
 that it helps promote go in
>the Western World (and in the Eastern, too), that it improves the skill
>of the players (and onlookers) attending, and that it actually is just
>about the only real chance to play for *LOTS* of people!
 
E.g. me. Before the server I managed to play about 3-5 games in two
months - now I can get a game whenever I want, which sometimes comes to
several per day.

>I do and will consider the act of running/improving the IGS a generous
>thing, for actually it must be very costly in terms of time and effort!
>I count it in the same category as keeping the go archive (thanks,
>Adrian!), which also must be time consuming. 

Thanks to all server programmers & managers, all client writers, and
Olli Lounela also for commenting games.

>However much I dislike increasing the workload, registration might be
>the thing to do. 

I second this, and to comment further, to remove registration swiftly
for all abuses*.

* One should view telnetting without the 6969 kindly though, unless it
repeats: I myself made that mistake often when my client broke down
during the change in the server.

>
>My apologies to anyone who has nothing to do with this this sad, sad,
>sad affair and thinks this post not quite proper.  This post is my first
>ever that can really be called a flame, and truly this affair has made
>me ***_VERY_*** angry indeed.  It's the very first time in *years* I've
>really been angry. 

Actually, I wouldn't have been quite so kind.

>
>I would include several smileys, but in the context that seems improper. 
>

Quite inappropriate.

	Tero Sand, 2 kyu
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: osman@hannah.enet.dec.com ("Eric, dtn 235-8439, DSG1-2/D8  27-Jan-1993 1415")
Subject: it's not how you play the game, but whether you win or lose
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:15:54 PST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA27542; Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:16:02 -0800
X-Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA03178; Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:15:50 -0800
X-Received: from hannah.enet; by decwrl.enet; Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:15:54 PST
X-To: gogroup@hannah.enet.dec.com
X-Apparently-To: rec.games.go.usenet


I think it *is* important to try to win at go.  To merely play and then not count
is silly.

However, I agree that one should maintain a detached attitude rather than being
upset at a loss.  In fact, use the loss as an opportunity for growth.  Replay
the game.  Where did you go wrong ?  What have you learned ?  Try again !

One idea that's often intrigued me is changing handicap *every* game.  You 5 kyu,
I'm 2 dan, ok, so we start I give you 6 stones as expected.  But if you win,
I only give you 5 stones.  But if I win first game, I give you 7 stones.  We
change handicap by one stone *every* game.

By doing this, no one wins for very long, so although object is still to win,
everyone tastes lots of losses.  Try it !

Thanks.

/Eric (2d)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: tarnished problem
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:12:51 GMT

bret@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Bret Pettichord) writes:
>   Thomas wrote:
>[..]
>   If Black tries to make two eyes at e1, the g1 stone moves away.
>   Black is dead. 
>   4. . . . . . . . . . . . .
>   3. . . O O O O O O O . . .
>   2. . . O X X X X X O . . .
>   1. . . O X . . X X O . . .
>    a b c d e f g h i k l m n
>
>This is correct only if we assume that the white stones won't move. In
>electric go this isn't true. Until it is clear how one could localize
>a problem in electric go, positions should only be analyzed in a
>whole-board context.

Of course this is right.  I was assuming here that white stones that are
pulled away can be replaced immediately.  As this is not necessarily true,
"dead" groups should be taken off the board as quickly as possible.

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Philosophy is the art of drawing conclusions from definitions that have been
chosen so that one can draw the conclusions one would like to get.
It immediately follows that philosophy is silly.
From: smidt@fy.chalmers.se (Peter Smidt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Internet Go Server Status.
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:20:30 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <4fKMaTm00gpm5B5ep0@cs.cmu.edu> Wilfred.Hansen@cs.cmu.edu writes:
>jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Cano) writes:
>> While we are on the subject of the automated rating system I have a
>> few questions about the algorithm used.
>
>I've posted earlier versions of a rating algorithm, but the version below
>has some new comments.  I believe this algorithm is similar to that
>used by both the IGS and the American Go Association.
> 
>The algorithm does 
> 
>> Have you posted the formula that the rating algorithm uses?
>
>Perhaps Tim will respond with an estimate of how close the algorithm
>below is to the rating system in use on the IGS.
>
>-- Pseudo-code for a ratings algorithm
>
> ( 280 line algorithm follows )

My theory is that the algoritm on IGS is wrong in some sense. I have
got some very odd results when playing/loosing against other
players. I'm almost certain that the algoritm must have some fault,
because I've heard of player that have won a lot but NOT got 
a positive rating and vice versa.

I'm also very suspicious to the fact that the rating is update
after approx 1 day. I've played matches and my rating have NOT
change or change in a very strange way in relations to my match
results. I think that the 1 day delay is made to hide that the
algoritm is wrong. I've mailed and asked why the delay is present
and got no answer...

/Smidt
-- 
+=======================================+
"The whole valley is like a smorgasbord."
					-- TREMORS
From: jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Cano)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: 'rating' command.
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:37:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


I ran the 'rating' command and here is
what I got.

The amount you differ from the average: -5.794363
The amount you differ from your rank:   0.687400
The number of games:                    0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^               ^^^

what does this ('The number of games:') mean?  It was 0 before
I had played a game that day, it was zero after I had played
a game that day ...

--Jonathan
-- 
============================================
| Jonathan Cano             |     //   _   |
| jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu    | \\ //   (_)  |
| 10kyu (+- 2kyu)           |  \X/     |<  |
============================================
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Help needed with go terms.
Date: 25 Jan 1993 19:26 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

jansteen@cwi.nl (Jan van der Steen) writes...
>In chess, the "zwichenzug" has the taste of a move which has been
>overlooked by one of the players: "the combination was beautifully
>planned and executed but white had the "zwichenzug" Bxh7+ which
>forced a draw by perpetual check...".

This isn't right. One does occasionally overlook a zwichenzug, but
it is really just a forcing move outside the main sequence.

Dave Ring (Cdude 5k)
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: bwb@greteltsg.tandem.com (Bruce Bailey)
Subject: Know of go clubs near Cupertino, CA?
Keywords: go club
Organization: Tandem Computers, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:01:50 GMT

There must be some go clubs in the Cupertino, California area, perhaps in
San Jose or Palo Alto.  Can anybody provide me a contact?  I'd like to play
some games "in person" rather than on the IGS.

Many thanks,
Bruce Bailey  ~16kyu
bailey_bruce@tandem.com
From: adrian@stein.u.washington.edu (Adrian Mariano)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Internet Go Server Status.
Date: 26 Jan 1993 03:29:37 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In <1k1oucINNclc@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Cano) writes:

>   functionality to IGC - I would like to issue some sort of 'who'
>   command that would do more complex filtering e.g. filter out all
>   people who have their open flag set to false, then sort the remaining
>   list according to rank and/or 'looking' flag ...  This would make it
>   simpler to look for an opponent of similar strength who is interested
>   in a game.  The reason I'm mentioning this here is because perhaps
>   someone will *get to* these improvements before I do (which might be
>   never :^).

The current igc already almost does this.  If you 'sort game' then you
get the who output with people who are 'looking' grouped together, and
people who are open but not looking grouped together.  Both groups are
sorted by rank.
From: jansteen@cwi.nl (Jan van der Steen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: sheah-jy23 document
Summary: Printable version of the sheah-jy23 available
Keywords: PostScript, LaTeX
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:39:59 GMT

Like the Meijin game played on the Internet Go Server, the sheah-jy23
game, played on IGS last week definitely deserved to get the same
treatment. A 62 page document of the game (including all kibitz, over
200 diagrams and a statistical overview of the comments made by the
attendants) is available from:

    ftp : sun4nl.nluug.nl
    dir : pub/games/go/games
    file: sheah-jy23.tex.tar.Z (LaTeX source)
    file: sheah-jy23.ps.Z      (PostScript file)

The latter file can be uncompressed and send to a PostScript printer:

    uncompress sheah-jy23.ps.Z
    lpr -P<name_of_PS_printer> sheah-jy23.ps

These two commands can be replaced by one single command too:

    zcat sheah-jy23.ps.Z | lpr -P<name_of_PS_printer>

Instead of printing the document you could also just display the file
on your screen using a PostScript previewer like ghostscript or xpsview.
If you are not sure how the previewer is named on your particular system
try the command:

    apropos PostScript

to get a listing of commands related to PostScript.

If you are acquainted with LaTeX and would like to "play" with
the document first you should get the LaTeX source which has the
encapsulated PostScript files for the diagrams included.


Jan van der Steen
-- 
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
     Jan van der Steen                 jansteen@cwi.nl
     Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI)
     Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From: mdobbins@asns.tredydev.Unisys.COM (Michael Dobbins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Internet Go Server Status.
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:21:13 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin, PA

In article <1jk79mINNeh8@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Cano) writes:
>tcasey@adobe.com (Tim Casey) writes:
>>Once a player has a rating in the system, that rating stays with that
>>player for a long time.  I have not decided how long yet.
>
>I don't understand.  Shouldn't the rating stay with the player
>forever?  Isn't this what happens in the USCF and AGA?  There a rating
>stays with a person for life (and changes ...).  How would a rating
>not stay with a player?

It is easy to get rid of an old rating; login as a new name!  Since the
IGS flushes logins that have been inactive for more than a month, you
can go back to the old name after a bit more than a month.  Am I wrong,
Tim?
From: Wilfred.Hansen@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: go terms
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:49:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.QfNA=9m00gpmMA7YNM
	<1993Jan20.220443.26116@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

olounela@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Olli Lounela) writes:
> In article <kfL5P5200gpm5JoDZi@cs.cmu.edu> Wilfred.Hansen@cs.cmu.edu writes:
> >
> >>                   A B C D E F G H I
> >>                9  . . . . . . . . .
> >>                8  . . . . . . . . .
> >>                7  . . # # . . . . .
> >>                6  . # o . # . . . .
> >>                5  d # o . . . . . .
> >>                4  c # o . # # . . .
> >>                3  # o o . o . # . .
> >>                2  a # # o . o # . .
> >>                1  b . o e . . . . .
> >>                   A B C D E F G H I
> >
> >Played in this order, # has the option of starting a ko by playing d
> >at B7.  It would be better to reverse the order of a and c.
> 
> Not exactly.  If black played d at b7, white e still works.  Black will
> not have time to connect b2 and c2 out. 

Yup.  And if a is played at A4, # can play b at A2, killing white.

My brain was clearly SCRAMBLED.  I must have been using PLASTIC wrap
under my ARMY helmet instead of tin FOIL!!!  Sigh.

Fred Hansen
From: hollasch@kpc.com (Steve Hollasch)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Internet Go Server Status.
Summary: On a rating algorithm that takes the final score into account.
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:47:42 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.

rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) writes:
> ... a resign win over someone 4 stones weaker (even game), should not be
> the same as a 5 pt win over someone 4 stones weaker (even game).  The
> second case is something that should affect your rating negatively, and
> the opponents positively.  The first, it isn't clear (to me)..

mdobbins@asns.tredydev.Unisys.COM (Michael Dobbins) writes:
| The rating algorithm does not consider how badly (number of points or
| resign) someone was beaten, just who won.  A half point victory counts
| just as much as a 40 point victory.  

    At first this seemed to be a weakness in the ratings algorithm.  After
all, if I give nine stones to an equally ranked opponent and lose by only 1
stone, it seems like this should bump my rank simply by virtue of huge
handicap and the fact that I "almost made it".

    On reflection, though, it occurred to me that this is the sort of
information that a rating algorithm should NOT try to account for.
Otherwise, 'greedy' players are rewarded while solid, conservative players
are penalized.  For example, if I am confident that I can hold and maintain
my 10 point lead, why get greedy just to affect my ratings algorithm?  If I
play a simple, bloodless game with a weaker player, should I pay the price
with a dropped rating because I only won by two stones?

    I have heard of dan-level players who make it a point to play a secure
game with a small but manageble lead against a much weaker player, rather
than try to kill every group on the board.  What would be the point?  A win
is a win.

    What _would_ be interesting would be a "personality rating".  Something
like this:

        Fighter        :  9.78
        Dumpling Former:  1.11
        Escaper        : -7.43
        Follower       :  2.78
        Peeper         :  5.52
        Resigner       :  ...

    Heh heh heh.  B^)

______________________________________________________________________________
Steve Hollasch                                   Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.
hollasch@kpc.com                                 Santa Clara, California
Newsgroups: rec.games.go