[Spoon-business] Picky ambiguity that will never show up

[Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx>]

[[ This is a much less important flaw in Go, but is still an ambiguity
in the rules - the Ko rule is underspecified. ]]

I propose:
__Better safe than confused__
{{
In Rule 1639 [[Go]], section E [[Ko]], change the paragraph

{{
Two states of the board are considered "equivalent" if the only
difference between them is that, at any number of given positions, a
stone belonging to one player is replaced by a stone belonging to
another, and those two players are allied. Only the positions of pieces
on the board, not the state of alliances, are considered
}}

to

{{
Two states of the board are considered "equivalent" if the only
difference between them is that, at any number of given positions, a
stone belonging to one player is replaced by a stone belonging to
another, and those two players are allied in either state. Only the
positions of pieces on the board are considered when checking for
equivalence; differences in the state of alliances or in who made the
most recent move are not considered.
}}

}}

-- 
Rob Speer

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business