Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] A three headed monkey!

["Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> I place a stone at H7. This captures BvS' stones at G7, H8, G8, F8, and
>>> F9, and Rob's stone at E8.
>>
>> -Nice try, boys, but you are so far from right it's almost funny. 
>> Because of my alliance with bd, those stones are protected by a link to 
>> him at F10. I count five more liberties for those stones. Someone might 
>> want to fix the Wiki accordingly.-
>>
>
>Ahh, I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken Baron. You see, its not a 
>_players_ stones which are captured, it is a dragons - and the dragon 
>formed by yours and Robs stones is NOT given a liberty by bd's stone, 
>because bd is NOT a mutual ally of yours and robs.
>
>the relevant text is in the political Go rule (r1639/3) section D, and 
>reads
>
>"A Dragon is a set of adjacent Stones that belong to players who are all 
>Allied with each other, and that are not adjacent to any other stones 
>belonging to a mutual ally of those players. [[This ensures that all 
>Dragons are of maximal size.]] If alliances are not transitive, it is 
>possible for a stone to be part of more than one Dragon. [[For example, if 
>A is allied with B and B is allied with C, then in the formation AAABBCCC, 
>the B stones are in both the AB dragon and the BC dragon.]]
>
>A Liberty is an empty position adjacent to a Dragon (possibly on the 
>interior of it). If a Dragon has no Liberties, then it is Captured."
>
>Therefore, our moves are corect.
>
>
>Have a nice day :)
>
-Stones can be in /multiple/ dragons. And my stones are in a dragon which is /not/ captured, that of me and bd. I think that the rule needs rewriting - your argument has a little merit, enough to make this confusing. That kind of confusion is a Bad Thing.-

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