HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nj@magnolia.Berkeley.EDU (Narciso Jaramillo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational complexity
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:26:56 GMT
Organization: Postcarcinogenic Bliss, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: magnolia.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: asek@acad2.alaska.edu's message of 30 Aug 92 22:24:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.182441.1@acad2.alaska.edu> asek@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

> The notion of computational complexity is partly subjective because it
>   exists in relationship to the processing features of the human brain.

Within computational theory, "computational complexity" has a precise
  definition unrelated to the processing features of the human brain.
Again: "within computational theory."
The notion's relevance to human cognition is thus accidental at best.

If you wish to talk about "computational complexity" with respect to the
  human brain, outside of computational theory, you will have
  to come up with some kind of definition first.
Otherwise, it is not a very useful point of discussion.
Indeed, it is not easy to see how the performance of human cognition could 
  be viewed in such simplistic terms.
Single numbers, for now, are best left for measuring computers.

> The relative success/failure of a GO program against a human opponent does
>   not measure computational complexity for two reasons.

This is true, but not for the reasons you state.
In fact, it is essentially meaningless to speak of the "computational
  complexity" of a game.
It is only meaningful 
  ["within computational theory"]
  to speak of the "computational complexity" of an _algorithm_ for playing
  a game.
I believe this is what they've been discussing.
Given that we do not know any good algorithms for playing go, let alone
  optimal algorithms, the discussion appears to have been centered around
  the computational complexity of the most brute force method--to wit,
  full-board search.
This is an attempt to give an "upper bound" ["w.c.t."] to the complexity
  of a computational algorithm for the game.

> Enzymatic synthesis seems to be easier for biochemical organisms than for
>   computer simulations.  The time alone for a process does not necessarily
>   suggest "computational complexity".  Rocks may be alive (but moving very
>   slowly.  This does not suggest that the rocks are necessarily any more or
>   less "computationally complex" than plants or animals.

You are using "computational complexity" outside of its proper domain.
No one may prevent you from doing so.  Indeed,
  it is often interesting to take terms from one domain and apply them
  to other domains, causing a metaphorical transfer of understanding.
However, being an allusive, illusive, elusive being,
  you probably do not want to transfer the dry, cold world of
  computational mathematics into the wet and warm universe of mind;
  rather the reverse.
Thus, for the purposes of the discussion you want to have,
  you might consider finding a more cognitively relevant,
  more poetic concept, than "computational complexity,"
  and import it.

> One may drop sand in each universe & face rain in each found grain.

Amen.


nj
From: yding+@pitt.edu (Yijun Ding)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: PCIGC39
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:42:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I recently tried to use PCIGC39 to play games on IGS.  On my first try,
I have missing piece problem.  On my second try, it stopped response,
(like my phone has been hangup).  Since in both cases, the program seems
to work at beginning, I don't know the problems.  I would appreciate if
anyone can tell me your experience with PCIGC39.

Unlike the previous version, I don't have any problem with 'observe'.

-- 
//Yijun Ding, Pittsburgh //Go your way, be happy.
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: s9874203@titan.ucc.umass.edu (s9874203)
Subject: what is "info" field for? [Re: PCIGC 3.9 now available via ftp]
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:58:26 GMT

In article <37524@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> schraudo@cs.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes:
[staff about the problems with some clients caused by m6's rank IGS92
deleted]
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but what do we have the "info" field for?  Hardly
>anybody seems to make use of it, and IMHO that would be the place to put
>such titles, be they Meijin, IGS champion, local club guru, or whatever.
>

Yeah, I agree with you. However, it is my observation that many of people
on igs are not willing to reveal their identities, who even leave the
email addresses as "none" for some reason I don't understand. 
Thus it is not a surprise at all that those
"info" fields are left blank. I would like to see more information in 
a player's "stats" so that I can have some idea who/what he is, etc.
Try to say something in your stats, whould you? 

H.Yang
From: schraudo@cs.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: alternative goban topologies? (was: Go vs other board games)
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:32:40 GMT

wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) writes:

>As indicated, I am posting this on behalf of    How-Hie Ling .
>Email responses should be directed to him at    H.LING@qut.edu.au

>   Also, I don't think any person in the world can invent a better board game
>   than go using such simple playing equipment and rules.  A better game
>   would have to be in the third group with may be different types of pieces.

Or maybe a different type of board... has anybody tried playing go on a
board with hexagonal or triangular grid, where stones could have at most
three (or six, respectively) liberties?  And how about a board with no
edges, e.g. using a geodesic ("soccer ball") shape?

Not that we could ever best the original, but if anybody has played with
such topological variations of go, let's hear it!
-- 
  Nicol N. Schraudolph, CSE Dept.  |
  Univ. of California, San Diego   |                                         o
  La Jolla, CA 92093-0114, U.S.A.  |                                        (\
  nici%cs@ucsd.{edu,bitnet,uucp}   |  (this mind intentionally left blank)  />
From: vbm@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Karen Hunt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: alternative goban topologies? (was: Go vs other board games)
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:30:16 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <37246@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> schraudo@cs.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes:
>
>Or maybe a different type of board... has anybody tried playing go on a
>board with hexagonal or triangular grid, where stones could have at most
>three (or six, respectively) liberties?  And how about a board with no
>edges, e.g. using a geodesic ("soccer ball") shape?
>
>Not that we could ever best the original, but if anybody has played with
>such topological variations of go, let's hear it!
>-- 
>  Nicol N. Schraudolph, CSE Dept.  |
>  Univ. of California, San Diego   |                                         o
>  La Jolla, CA 92093-0114, U.S.A.  |                                        (\
>  nici%cs@ucsd.{edu,bitnet,uucp}   |  (this mind intentionally left blank)  />

There's a variant I and a couple of friends of mine have played, invented
not by me but by one of them.  The rules are exactly as in go, but not all
locations have the same number of liberties.  For example, the corner location
has exactly one liberty, while the edges have 2 and everywhere else has 4.
 It looks like this:

.   .   .   .   .
 \ / \ / \ / \ /
  .   .   .   .
 / \ / \ / \ / \
.   .   .   .   .    (Actually, the board is significantly larger, and
 \ / \ / \ / \ /      it is square, but this gives the right idea)
  .   .   .   .
 / \ / \ / \ / \
.   .   .   .   .

It has the unusual property that a stone placed on a "2-2" point gives an
immediate eye, and the smallest guaranteed alive group requires only 3 
stones.

.   .   .   .   .   .
 \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
  O   O   .   .   .
 / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
.   O   .   .   .   .   Here, for example, the 3 O's are unconditionally
 \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /    alive.
  .   .   .   .   .
 / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
.   .   .   .   .   .

Several effects come as a result:  life is very easy along the edge, and
seki is a fairly common situation.  Ladders are the same as in go, except
that they travel vertically or horizontally instead of diagonally.

Karen Hunt, approximately 10kyu.
vbm@mace.cc.purdue.edu
From: asek@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: AI, games, go...
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:47:03 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska


A book which continues to fascinate and tantalize is:
Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays, by J.H. Conway and colleagues
----------------------------------------

Some time ago the newsgroup  sci.math  entertained a discussion on the
topic of  "How Intelligent are the Winning Ways?"

The book seems trivial at first but probably provides one of the better
introductions into modern knowledge about a GO algorithm.

:=:
From: tcasey@adobe.com (Tim Casey)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: what is "info" field for? [Re: PCIGC 3.9 now available via ftp]
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:08:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: adobe.1992Sep4.210838.5708
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View

In article <1992Sep1.205826.29409@nic.umass.edu> s9874203@titan.ucc.umass.edu (s9874203) writes:
>
>Yeah, I agree with you. However, it is my observation that many of people
>on igs are not willing to reveal their identities, who even leave the
>email addresses as "none" for some reason I don't understand. 
>Thus it is not a surprise at all that those
>"info" fields are left blank. I would like to see more information in 
>a player's "stats" so that I can have some idea who/what he is, etc.
>Try to say something in your stats, whould you? 
>

I agree as well.  I have felt and still feel, that if peoples'
identities were forced, the server would not be as it is.  I feel
it would degrade the environment.  The administrator to the server
keeps a log of who comes on from where.  That should be enough
for the security of the server.  In fact, the few times there
have been problems it has been enough.

I thought about putting the internet address of the last connection.
I decided not to force that upon people.  As it is the server
interface is rather restrictive.  I would not like the interface
to be even more restrictive.

tim
From: adrian@milton.u.washington.edu (Adrian Mariano)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Archive site reorganization:  Directory Structure
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:52:18 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

I have gotten several requests to reorganize the files in the archive
site into a directory structure of some sort.  

Here is my first stab at it:

Top level:

FAQ		README		RULES.SG	games		pro
PLAYERS		RULES		comp		info		prog

comp:  Directory for material relating to computers trying to play go
amigo.lzh	fumiko.sh.Z	igo.zip		report.ps.Z
compbibs.Z	fumiko.zip	iku.tar.Z	theory.sh.Z
compgo.Z	golem.sh.Z	logan.c.Z	wally.sh.Z
dragon.hqx.Z	hp-xgo-info.Z	macgo.hqx.Z	xamigo11.sh.Z

games: Commented games, problems, or game fragments.  Things not meant
       to be directly read by humans.
amgames1.sh.Z	duel.ps.Z	fun.sh.Z	joseki.c.Z	optimal.sh.Z
amgames2.sh.Z	duel.tex.Z	handicap.sh.Z	joseki.sh.Z	problems.sh.Z
duel.mgt.Z	fmgt.sh.Z	jingprobs.sh.Z	netgame.Z	self-rank.Z

info:  Information files relating to go
addresses.Z	books.Z		clubs.ishi.Z	kless.Z		proverbs.Z
aga-rating.Z	children.Z	definitions.Z	lightning.Z	rules.aga.Z
article.Z	clubs.aga.Z	hypercontrol.Z	maxgroups.Z	tournament.Z

pro:   uncommented pro games
games.tar.Z		japanchina.tar.Z	pro2.tar.Z
goseigen1.sh.Z		judan.tar.Z		pro3.tar.Z
goseigen2.sh.Z		kisei.tar.Z		progames.sh.Z
handicap.tar.Z		meijin.tar.Z		progames.tar.Z
honinbo.tar.Z		nhk_38.tar.Z		shusaku.sh.Z
honinbo6.tar.Z		pro1.tar.Z		twogames.sh.Z

prog:  programs that don't try to play go
board.lzh	goboard.sh.Z	latex.sh.Z	sgyacc.sh.Z	vt220.Z
convert.tar.Z	gs039.sit.hqx	latex.tar.Z	smart2ps32.sh.Z	xgoban-1.0.sh.Z
diagram.sh.Z	igc050.sh.Z	mgt22.sh.Z	standard.sh.Z	xgosh17.sh.Z
gamerec1.Z	igs.ps.Z	mgt22.zip	sungo.sh.Z	xgospel.sh.Z
gamerec2.Z	igs.tex.Z	pcig303z.exe	telego38.zip	xigs_v1.0.sh.Z
go.bas.Z	igs040.sh.Z	protocol.Z	tinygo1.sh.Z	xwidget2.sh.Z
go630.sh.Z	inetgo72.sh.Z	sg2ps.sh.Z	tinygo2.sh.Z



This reorganization is presently underway, so the files on the archive
site may be moving around, and the README file won't be updated to
reflect this reorganization for a few days.

If you have any comments or suggestions, please email me.
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: alternative goban topologies? (was: Go vs oth
From: wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:34:26 +1200
 1992AUG26.145549.536@CSC.CANTERBURY.AC.NZ <1992Aug27.145757@cc4.kuleuven.ac.be>
Distribution: world
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury

Ton Hospel writes:

|>  - one could allow movement. Instead of putting a stone on the board, you
|>    are allowed to move a stone to an neigbour intersection. Suddenly
|>    bad shape becomes repairable, eyes can migrate and dangos can develop eyes.
                                                  
I've played this variation too ! Actually, not quite. The way we played it
was: at each turn a player could make two "moves", one was to be a new stone
placement, as in regular go, the other was to be a movement of a stone on
the board to an orthogonally adjacent free point (possibly resulting in a
capture as usual). Either (or both) of these "move" options could be waived
if desired, *and* (important) the two options could be played in *either* 
order.

We called this "move go". Several of us played it for fun (after tournament
rounds) for several years. (I was NZ champion at "move go" for a long time ;-) )
We mostly played on 9x9, rarely on 13x13.

It is great fun. I warmly recommend you to try it.

As Ton Hospel says, the most dango-ish and hopelessly dead-looking group can come
alive if there is an inch of room for it ! It becomes a matter of great skill to
spot how closely such a group must be constrained, to keep it dead. The
two-"move" turn (i.e. one place and one move) together with the optional order
give one great flexibilty of action, it's even possible it could be a better
game than regular go, (what heresy ! throw him out!). It certainly simulates
warfare better than regular go, (so what). We never did figure out how to record
it easily !

Anyway; if you're into variations at all, do give this one a try. Great fun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bill Taylor              wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Put it this way.      No-one calls me a psychopath.       And lives. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: storm@med.umich.edu (John Starkweather )
Subject: help with X
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:16:02 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor
Originator: storm@wolverine.math.lsa.umich.edu


I have been trying to get a X-go board,
 xgoban-1.0.sh.Z,xigs_v1.0.sh.Z,xwidget2.sh.Z

problem : i get this message 
ld.so: Undefined symbol: _XtAppInitialize
help would be appretiated
From: schraudo@cs.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: PCIGC 3.9 now available via ftp
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:41:20 GMT

stud05@cc4.kuleuven.ac.be (Frank en stijn) writes:

>In article 1992AUG31.100934.10306@INFORMATIK.TU-MUENCHEN.DE, SCHOETT@INFORMATIK.TU-MUENCHEN.DE writes:
>> It's a weird idea to have a rank that uses so much space.  How is
>> anyone supposed to design a sensible screen layout for this?

>But anyways, if we have an IGS tournament every year, and the winner challenges
>the old champion, just IGS as strength should be enough. Or the server could
>just give his normal strength (still nice to know), and have a command to
>ask for the current champion. A client program could then decide to do
>something special with the display of this person (highlight, colors).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what do we have the "info" field for?  Hardly
anybody seems to make use of it, and IMHO that would be the place to put
such titles, be they Meijin, IGS champion, local club guru, or whatever.

Now that I'm on the soapbox anyway, I'd like to thank AshaiRey for writing
such a wonderful client!  It's a great program, and keeps getting better
and better... now how about giving him the honorary rank of "xgospel" on
the server?  ;-)  Seriously though:  hip, hip...


-- 
  Nicol N. Schraudolph, CSE Dept.  |
  Univ. of California, San Diego   |                                         o
  La Jolla, CA 92093-0114, U.S.A.  |                                        (\
  nici%cs@ucsd.{edu,bitnet,uucp}   |  (this mind intentionally left blank)  />
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: stud05@cc4.kuleuven.ac.be (Frank en stijn)
Distribution: world
Date: Monday, 31 Aug 1992 03:28:48 +02
Organization: K.U.Leuven - Academic Computing Center
Subject: New version of xgospel
Keywords: xgospel, IGS, X, go

Hello world,
a new version of xgospel, my X IGS client program for UNIX boxes, is available.
This will be the last version NOT having client-mode :-) .
You can get it using anonymous ftp at cc1.kuleuven.ac.be
Once there do:
cd ANONYMOU.200                     (case is important)
binary                              (mandatory, cc1 is an EBCDIC system)
get XGOSPEL.TARZ xgospel.tar.Z      (changes silly filename to normal UNIX one)
quit
The rest should be easy :-)
Changes:
  - build in some go intelligence for analyzing
  - All boards save full history, you can scroll forward and backward through
    a game. You can also have multiple views on a game.
  - recognizes all messages you get while playing yourself (I hope).
  - windows try to behave more intelligent
and much, much more.
                                                       Ton Hospel
              				              (AshaiRey on IGS)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: Oliver Schoett <schoett@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
Subject: Re: PCIGC 3.9 now available via ftp
	<1992Aug28.103026.25567@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <adrian.715024957@milton>
Organization: Inst. fuer Informatik, Technische Univ. Muenchen, Germany
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:09:34 GMT

In article <adrian.715024957@milton> adrian@milton.u.washington.edu
(Adrian Mariano) writes:

 > If m6 is involved, however, it looks like this
 > 
 > [ 2]          m6 [IGS92] vs.         cfy [ 5d] (155   19    0    0.5)
 > 
 > I originally assumed that ranks were exactly three characters, but
 > m6's rank is five characters.  Old versions of igc were not able to
 > parse this, so you could not observe m6's games or play against m6.  

It's a weird idea to have a rank that uses so much space.  How is
anyone supposed to design a sensible screen layout for this?  Waste
two columns on everyone else so that m6's rank can be displayed
properly?  (The output of xgospel, for example, is messed up too).  I
would simply truncate the rank after three characters.


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
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: tomg@mishima.mn.org (Thomas Greenwalt)
Subject: Go players in Mpls, MN
Organization: Alternate Realities
Distribution: mn
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:02:51 GMT

Hi- I'm looking for someones in the Twin Cities who would be willing to
play Go with me.  Basically I am new to the game and only have played a 
couple times several years ago.  Other beginners are welcome, more advanced
players who are patient would be a pleasant surprise.
-- 
Thomas S. Greenwalt (Tom-Too)                                  (612)866-1344
7300 Nicollet Ave. S, Mpls, MN 55423                     tomg@mishima.mn.org 
-------------- Death: SEE! I HAVE TIME! AT LAST I HAVE TIME! ---------------
--- Alfred: And now that you have it, what are you going to do with it? ----
From: adrian@milton.u.washington.edu (Adrian Mariano)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: PCIGC 3.9 now available via ftp
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:02:37 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

> vader@iat.holonet.net (Edward Blair) writes:
>>
>>    PCIGC 3.9 is now available by anonymous ftp from ftp.u.washington.edu.
>>This version incorporates most of the updates to the unix igc .52 including 
>>peek, who sorting, games with m6, komi and handicap displays etc. PCIGC 3.9 
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Just out of curiosity: what's the problem with this?

When my client starts observing or playing a game, it sends the
"games" command to the server to get information about the game.
Here is an example of the output from the "games" command.  

[ 0]          JW [ NR] vs.        feau [ 2d] (222   19    0    0.5)
[ 1]         TOM [ 2k] vs.         kim [ 3k] (242   19    0    0.5)
[ 2]          gs [ 6d] vs.         cfy [ 5d] (155   19    0    0.5)
[ 3]     camillo [ 1k] vs.      mrgold [ 1k] (212   19    0    5.5)

If m6 is involved, however, it looks like this

[ 2]          m6 [IGS92] vs.         cfy [ 5d] (155   19    0    0.5)

I originally assumed that ranks were exactly three characters, but
m6's rank is five characters.  Old versions of igc were not able to
parse this, so you could not observe m6's games or play against m6.  
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Go variant: Surprise Go (was: ...-spiel games.)
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:50:33 GMT

In article <KRB.92Aug27182648@krb.fluent.UUCP>, krb@krb.fluent.UUCP (Ken Blake) writes:
>This is very similar to the game "crazy go" which I first saw at the 
>previous U.S. Go congress, organized by Bob High.  The only difference
>is that instead of 3 boards there are 5 boards - 1 for each of the 4
>players and 1 for the umpire.  Each player only gets to look at his own
>board of course.  Other than this the game is identical.

I know that one too (it is also played at European Go Congresses), and it
is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT GAME.  You see only your own stones.  That allows
for strategies which are not at all go-like, for example first making a
living group and then spreading tentacles over the board from there.  In my
version you have to play "real go" with real strategy, and the random element
plays not *such* a big role.  It is much closer to go than to crazy go.
The players have the impression of playing a normal game with occasional
surprises, while crazy go is more like walking around blind.

>Its hilarious to watch and very difficult to play.  In fact, I've only 
>seen it played on smaller board sizes.  I highly recommend it as an
>interesting diversion.

Me too, but of course I think surprise go is much better :-)

>One question I have is should the teams be allowed to discuss strategy
>before hand or not?  The strategy might involve a certain number of
>fixed moves so both team members would know each others moves.  However,
>this could be foiled by the other teams plays, and they would also have
>their own strategy.

At surprise go, they should not be allowed to do that.  I think that would
spoil the fun.  Crazy go, on the other side... I don't know it well enough
to say anything but it could get a bit better by this.

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Newsgroups: rec.games.go