Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] [PGo] Alliance

[Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 08:50:33PM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> I still don't see how either of our interpretations would result in 
> this... my interpretation is that a dragon is a set of stones s.t. 
> every stone in it is owned by one of some group of allied players, and 
> no adjacent stone is owned by a player who isn't a mutual ally of said 
> group. The center square in the above is not a dragon, because no 
> matter what set of allies you choose, I must be in it; and thus the 
> surrounding squares are also owned by a member of the group (me). Now, 
> if the situation were something like this:
> 
> G G G
> G R G
> G G G
> 
> and you had an ally that Glotmorf didn't, then you'd lose your piece 
> because the surrounding pieces would not belong to a member of the set 
> of allies.

Actually, you're right. It's trickier than I thought to come up with an
absurd example.

But anyway, since you seem to be recognizing that your interpretation is
silly, I hope you don't pursue it so we can keep on playing Go.

And if you didn't want to be attacked, you shouldn't have tried to claim
all that territory from the fourth row. :P
-- 
Rob Speer

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