HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Cano)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Internet Go Server Status.
Date: 27 Jan 1993 03:47:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


hollasch@kpc.com (Steve Hollasch) writes:

>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.

Exactly!  When you are playing a game the object is to get at *more*
points than your opponent.  Who is better:  Ed who beat Fred by 40
points or Fred who beat Ed by 1 point 40 times out of the last 41
games?  When a player is ahead, then the smart thing to do is 'coast'
and play the safe moves.  

Is it smart to settle for a 1/2 point (or a 2 or 3 point) loss when by
playing risky moves in a ko fight you have a chance of losing big or,
possibly, winning?  

According to traditional rules, a 1pt loss == 100pt loss.  To change
this would be to create a new variation of Go.  This is not bad, but
I, personally, prefer the traditional values that say forty 1pt wins and
one 40pt loss are better to have than one 40pt win and forty 1pt losses.



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

>    Heh heh heh.  B^)

I like these! 

-- 
============================================
| Jonathan Cano             |     //   _   |
| jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu    | \\ //   (_)  |
| 10kyu (+- 2kyu)           |  \X/     |<  |
============================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: jzy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Yu)
Subject: Re: FWD: GO RULES FOR BEGINNERS (rec.games.go)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:41:36 GMT

In article <9301221630.AB00981@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> osman@hannah.enet.dec.com ("Eric, dtn 235-8439, DSG1-2/D8  22-Jan-1993 1130") writes:
>
>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:
> 
>7. The object of the game is to form unkillable groups that
>occupy more of the board than your opponent's groups.
> 
>And now for my comments:
>
>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

Could this be a difference in the scoring rules?  In my experience, if we
use Chinese scoring rule, then the winner is the one who gets more points
(intersections) *on the board*, regardless of prisoners.  Eric's example
can be possible if we use Japanese rule -- which makes me feel that this is
a drawback of Japanese rule. :-)

Imagine a general leading his troops going to a war.  In the war, he
sacrificed many of his soilders for some important positions on the battle
field.  At the end, despite losing more lives, he gained more land.  Was he
a loser or a winner? :-)

Regards,
Jim Yu
--
Go isn't everything.  Go is the only thing.           -- zhuge


Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder)
Subject: Re: Territory v. Points
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:52:05 GMT

In <93026.072750GDH3@psuvm.psu.edu> <GDH3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>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.

[...]

>The effect of a seki might be
>serious if one player has more stones involved in the seki than the other.

Are you sure?  I was under the impression that the equivalence argument
also held in many seki situations.  The only exceptions would be seki
in which one side has more eyes than the other (eyes inside seki count
as territory in China, but not in Japan) and seki in which only one side
can fill dame points without disturbing the seki.

--
Confused,

HansM
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: lh8413@u.cc.utah.edu (Louise Horney/internal medicine)
Subject: Re: TGIGC
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center Student Mail Machine
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:49:36 GMT

In article <DEREK.93Jan26044102@au-bon-pain.lcs.mit.edu> 
           derek@au-bon-pain.lcs.mit.edu (Derek Chiou) writes:

>Our machines require us to specify the terminal emulation that we are using
>when dialing up.  Does anyone know what terminal protocol TGIGC uses?  

Tgigc does no input or output character processing.  In Comm mode it is
basically a 'dumb terminal'.

Steve Richard (srichard)

Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: osman@hannah.enet.dec.com ("Eric, dtn 235-8439, DSG1-2/D8  27-Jan-1993 1121")
Subject: playing on an occupied intersection ???
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:21:51 PST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA24743; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:21:59 -0800
X-Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA09326; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:21:46 -0800
X-Received: from hannah.enet; by decwrl.enet; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:21:51 PST
X-To: gogroup@hannah.enet.dec.com
X-Apparently-To: rec.games.go.usenet

The aga rules, recently posted here, include this:

>8) Illegal Moves: An illegal move is one violating the rules. If a
>player makes an illegal move--such as moving twice in a row (i.e.,
>before the opponent has made a response), attempting to play on an
>occupied intersection,  self-capture, or retaking a ko so as to repeat
>the full board position, the player must take back his or her move (both
>moves, if he or she moved twice in succession), it shall be treated as a
>pass, and a pass stone exchanged.
> 
>An illegal move must be noted as such by the opponent before he or she
>makes his or her move. When a player moves, he or she is tacitly
>accepting the opponent's previous move as valid. In particular, if it is
>discovered that an earlier move by one of the players was illegal, the
>game must nevertheless be continued as it stands unless both players
>agree to restore the earlier board position and proceed from that point.


That bit about "attempting to play on an occupied intersection" is amusing.
Also, the bit about having to accept illegal moves once the next move has been
made.

Some situations I can think of:

1)	Player carefully balances a stone on top of another one.  If this isn't
	flagged by opponent before the next move, then rule 8 says the move
	"stands" (pun realized).  But how do we score at the end ?  One could
	think about a stone "capped" (again, pun realized) on top of either a
	friendly or an enemy stone.

	In general, this idea of having to accept illegal moves once the next
	move has been played opens up all kinds of bizarre situations.

2)	Two adjacent black stones of a string have been sloppily played such that
	the left of the two is a bit to the left of the intersection, and the
	right one is a bit to the right, such that white manages to
	play a "cutting" move that looks like a real cut in the game of go
	even though the white stone isn't even on an intersection at all !

	Again, if black doesn't call this before the next move, the rule says
	the play stands.  But how do we score the game ?

I would suggest the rules be modified.  I might suggest that the rule state
that anytime during playing or scoring, if an illegal move is found such that
the opponents can not agree on how to fix the board to make it legal, if the
directory agrees that the move is illegal, the other player wins.  If both
sides have illegal moves, then the game is decided by NIGIRI (black player
holds handful of stones, white player guesses EVEN or ODD, and wins game if
guesses correctly).

/Eric
From: tcasey@adobe.com (Tim Casey)
Subject: Re: close the igs server
Keywords: igs, go
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:45:38 GMT

In article <44078@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ee52fep@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (Handy Man) writes:
>A bad news, the famouse Internet Go Service is going to shut down.
>In order to memorize this kindly server, which has given us so much
>joy and been our close friends during its existing, I call for all
>the 5d, 6d and 7d come to play a tournament, to show the spirit of
>go, to memorize this good friend --- icsib18!

Gees.  The server is only *moving*.  I hope to not have *any* down time.
IT IS ONLY MOVING.
From: hollasch@kpc.com (Steve Hollasch)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Internet Go Server Status.
Summary: Unite against the evil one!
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:06:18 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.

smidt@fy.chalmers.se (Peter Smidt) writes:
| 
| My theory is that the algoritm on IGS is wrong in some sense ...
| I'm almost certain that the algoritm must have some fault ...
| 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...

    FINALLY someone has the COURAGE to bring this to the public's
attention!!!!!  I CAN'T BELIEVE that the people in this group are so
BLIND to the FACT that Tim is doing something VERY VERY EVIL through
the Internet Go Server!!!!!!

    Peter - perhaps GREAT MINDS like you and I will be PERSECUTED for
bringing this to the PUBLIC LIGHT, but the TRUTH will NOT be SILENCED
by EVIL EVIL BAD WICKED NAUGHTY PEOPLE like Tim!!!!!

    My experiences are similar to yours:  I've LOST the LAST SEVEN GAMES
I've played on the IGS!!!!!!!  I can hear you all now:  "So what?  Everybody
loses games".  (You ALL HATE ME, don't you???!!!!???!!)

    WELL THEN HOW COME MY HEAD WAS TINGLING THE *WHOLE TIME* I WAS ON
THE IGS!!??!!??  I'm NOT STUPID; I wear ALUMINUM FOIL under an ARMY HELMET
to keep the CIA from ELECTRONICALLY READING MY THOUGHTS, but the TINGLING
STILL GETS THROUGH!!!!!!!!!  Something *EVIL* *BAD* *WICKED* is happening
from the IGS!!!!!

    Now every time I go out in public, PEOPLE LOOK AT ME FUNNY!!  What have
you DONE to my BRAIN, TIM????  How long do you think you can HIDE the fact
that you're a CIA SCIENTIST WHO'S TRYING TO TAP OUR BRAINS!!????  If you
don't PUT MY MIND BACK to the way it was before, I'll REMOVE MY ALUMINUM
FOIL BRAIN PROTECTOR and make you CATCH ON FIRE WITH MY X-RAY MIND
BEAMS!!!!!!

______________________________________________________________________________
Steve Hollasch                                   Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.
hollasch@kpc.com                                 Santa Clara, California
From: mdobbins@asns.tredydev.Unisys.COM (Michael Dobbins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Teaching Boards/Boards
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:23:37 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin, PA

In article <1993Jan21.031717.6006@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au> dif@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au (David Faulkner) writes:
>Several hundred dollars for a white board is an incredible rip-off. Why
>not just buy some white board yourself (hardware store?) and rule up the
>board with a permanent marker. Might cost you $10. 

I don't think the cost of the board is the major expense, I think it is
the large magnetic stones that go with it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Help needed with go terms.
From: wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:32:34 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury

What do the terms   GAISEI   and   SENZENSEN   mean, please ?

One of the published lists gives KAME NO KO as meaning "tortoiseshell". Can
someone explain this, please ?

Finally, in chess, there is a very useful word, "zwichtenzug", meaning
"intervening move"; used of a move that is becoming more urgent, and (probably)
forces a reply, but is outside of the main thread of the battle going on at the 
time. So it usually comes as a surprise.

It strikes me that this kind of thing is even more common at go than chess, so
there may well be a standard Japanese term for it.  Does anyone know of it ?

Thanks,     Bill Taylor.    wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Subject: Re: FWD: GO RULES FOR BEGINNERS 
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:59:24 GMT

>Barring seki and handicaps, japanese and chinese scoring can never
>differ by more than one point.

Just a tiny nit-pick here. This statement is not quite true, (even ignoring
those weird multi-move repeaters that never occur in real games).

A 1-point ko left till the end of the game can actually lead to a
2-point difference in scores. This is not all that uncommon.  An example...

X O . O .   Just a 5x5 game to illustrate.  X & O each have 9 stones on board.
X X O O .   It is X to play, (so prisoners are equal).
. X X O O   
X X X O .   X will take the top-edge ko and win it.
. X O O .
 
Japanese score:  X 2+1 prisoner = 3; O 4.    O wins by one point.

 Chinese score:  X 13; O 12.                 X wins by one point.

Amazingly, if there are an even number of dame, filling in a dame is good as a
ko threat ! In the example, let the bottom centre stone and the one above it be 
missing. Then when X takes the ko, O can fill one of these dame as a threat. If
X ignores & takes the ko, O will still win by one (in Chinese). As he will if X
"answers" by taking the other dame. (And if X filled a dame first, O would fill
the ko and win by one point anyway.)

This "anomalous value" of an end-game ko is often adduced as evidence against
the reasonableness of Chinese scoring, though I personally have never seen it
that way. I think it is a delightful extra wrinkle in end-game tactics, no
different from any other odd little 1-or-2 point battle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Bill Taylor              wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No, I'm *not* cheating my employer by spending 3 hours a day on the net.
  I'm just using the time I would have spent on chess problems and solitaire.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shrchin@susssys1.reading.ac.uk (Jonathan H. N. Chin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Internet Go Server Status.
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:45:23 GMT
Organization: University of Reading

achim@math25.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Achim Flammenkamp) writes:

>1) It is anoying to see the password you typed in, after your login id, echoed
>   on the screen. Especialy it is the only login to a system I know were the
>   password is'nt hided. People looking about your shoulder are ... ?

I think this must be something to do with your system rather than the server
(or maybe interaction between them). I do not see my password when I log onto IGS.

>2) About the rating: I think it will be more interesting to keep them not se-
>   cret. Mostly I would like to have the ability to look at a sorted "rating
>   list".  By the way: If you give absolute ratings, you can show NR ranked
>   people their rating, too. Nice gift to see the rating: xyz 0.7 dan :)

I believe there was a big debate about this before the current system was 
installed. The way it works now, some people gain, while nobody loses.
(ie. some people get something they want, while no-one is forced to have 
something they don't want.)

>3) Only for estetic elegance (and maybe fairness): During the removale phase,
>   after the end of a game, it should be allowed only to remove own stones.

Then if someone types "done" too soon, it is your own fault if you lose
territory when the server calculates that it is all dame?
I liked the old method where both players had to type done before the game
was scored (even if you could fool it by typing "done" twice).


-jonathan

--
Jonathan H N Chin, 7 kyu \ Dept. of Cybernetics, \ "Respondeo, etsi mutabor"
                          \ University of Reading \
shrchin@uk.ac.rdg.susssys1 \ Box 225, Whiteknights \ < Rosenstock-Huessy >
bq305@cleveland.freenet.edu \ Reading, RG6 2AY, U K \
-- 
Jonathan H N Chin, 7 kyu \ Dept. of Cybernetics, \ "Respondeo, etsi mutabor"
                          \ University of Reading \
shrchin@uk.ac.rdg.susssys1 \ Box 225, Whiteknights \ < Rosenstock-Huessy >
bq305@cleveland.freenet.edu \ Reading, RG6 2AY, U K \
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: derek@au-bon-pain.lcs.mit.edu (Derek Chiou)
Subject: TGIGC
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:41:02 GMT

Hello,

I just down loaded tgigc and it looks great.  I was having some
problems getting it to login to my machines though.  Our machines
require us to specify the terminal emulation that we are using when
dialing up.  Does anyone know what terminal protocol TGIGC uses?  

Thanks!

Derek Chiou
derek@abp.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: tcasey@adobe.com (Tim Casey)
Subject: Re: SOS!  IGS is in dangeous.
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:44:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.123556.22154@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>* 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.
>

It is not true to think of this as 'normal', much less kindly.  If I were
a system manager, I would think someone is trying to break in to my 
machine.

tim
From: gennari@mcs-next-3 (John H. Gennari)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: RE: Go rules for Beginners
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:57:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: morrow.1k3u2dINNksv
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: mcs-next-3.stanford.edu


> 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.

	What a good idea! This type of play would probably even help my
playing ability. I have a bad habit of trying to kill big groups and 
then losing when I fail..... and I definitely need work in approximating
the score during the middle game. 

-gofiend, 3k
From: hale@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Greg Hale)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: IGS
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:47:11 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf.berkeley.edu

	In approximately three weeks the Internet Go Server (IGS)
	located at the current site, icsib18.icsi.berkeley.edu 6969, will
	be moving to a new site if all goes well.  The new site will be
	located somewhere at .......ucsf.edu.   As soon as the new
	site is ready I will post the new address here and in the motd
	on IGS.
From: shrchin@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Jonathan H. N. Chin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: is this joseki?
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:10:12 GMT
Organization: University of Reading

| . . . . . . . .
| . . . . . . . .
| . A a . . . . .
| . c O # . # . .
| . . b . . . . .
| . . . . . . . .
| . . . . . . . .
+-----------------

In "38 Basic Joseki", after the move by White shown, various responses
are given. Black replies at either a or b. Say Black plays at a, then
White can play at A. Thereafter, the book gives a couple of continuations
for Black.

However, a move not covered is Black at c. It seems to me that this
gives Black the potential for a strong outward facing wall with White
trapped below. Alternatively, Black gains the corner while White lives
on the side.

For example:

| . . . . . . . .                  | . . . . . . . .
| . . . . . . . .                  | . . . . . . . .
| . a . . . . . .                  | . a b . . . . .
| c O # . . . . .                  | . O # B G . . .
| . # O # b # . .                  | . # O # C # . .
| . C A B d . . .                  | . F A c D . . .
| . . . . E D . .                  | . f e d E . . .
| . . . . . . . .                  | . . . . . . . .
+-----------------                 +-----------------

Is this reasoning correct? Or is there some subtlety I am missing that
makes the continuation at the 2-4 pt bad for Black?

-jonathan
-- 
Jonathan H N Chin, 6 kyu \ Dept. of Cybernetics, \ "Respondeo, etsi mutabor"
                          \ University of Reading \
shrchin@uk.ac.rdg.susssys1 \ Box 225, Whiteknights \ < Rosenstock-Huessy >
bq305@cleveland.freenet.edu \ Reading, RG6 2AY, U K \
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: ben@cs.vu.nl (Bruschke BAH)
Subject: Re: FWD: GO RULES FOR BEGINNERS (rec.games.go)
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:25:35 GMT

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.

					Ben Bruschke
Newsgroups: rec.games.go