Re: [spoon-discuss] RE: [Spoon-business] Political Go

[Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 04:34:09PM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> There's nothing wrong in principle with alliances being asymmetric. That
> way, if you break an alliance, your former ally's stones are "surprised"
> for a move: your stones draw liberties from them, but they draw no liberties
> from yours.

Hmm. That doesn't work with how I defined capturing (in short, after
each player's move, consider each stone to either be "Us" or "Them", and
determine captures like Go does).

Looking at the original rules, it was fairly vague on what to do with
non-transitive alliances, and I think this fixes it. I can't think of a
consistent way to deal with non-symmetric alliances, though. If the
other guy's stones don't draw liberties from yours, then they must be in
a group, so that only if the larger group is surrounded by something
hostile are they captured. But your stones could be simultaneously
surrounding theirs. How can you have a group going one way and not the
other?
-- 
Rob Speer

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