You won, you definitely won. No question. You're fully documented. But I still don't agree that there are any problems with Japanese rules and I don't think I misinformed anyone on any point. I definitely firmly believe the AGA switched to Ing-resembling rules because of Ing and not because Japanese rules are too hard despite the public documentation. The problems are so rare they just don't matter very much.
They're filled with whatever because I don't agree with the AGA or you and never have. I've read the literature on the subject and I simply don't agree with it. The only problems with the Japanese rules are silly edge cases that rarely come up (not including bent-4, which we usually just ignore and play through at my club). The edge cases are normally resolved through discussion or by playing them out. So whatever. Hate on the rules, but they're still best.
I do have a problem with AGA and Chinese rules. They encourage players to keep going when they should really quit. I'm not aware that I've ever played anyone that seriously preferred AGA rules to Japanese rules. It's probably happened, but I'm not aware of it. We've had a few Chinese people stop by. They prefer the Chinese rules and Chinese counting... needless to say.
When the non-Japanese rules have rules to discourage people from playing impossible situations just to see if you make a mistake, maybe I'll like them a little more.
I'm not blaming Ing for the Japanese rules being difficult, I'm blaming him for screwing up AGA rules. I don't know anyone who actually likes those rules. They may be easier for beginners (although that is not my experience); but they're irritating for seasoned players.
K, fine. You win. Nobody could ever play under Japanese rules. They make no sense. Although, I think it's Ing's fault. Their primary source of funding was the Ing foundation. Also, nobody I have ever met plays under any other rules than Japanese rules, except at AGA tournaments anyway -- where people play under Japanese rules and pass a stone at the end without understanding why. But I suppose you're right. Nobody could ever comprehend Japanese rules.
It's not bullshit, the rules are fine. You don't understand them yet or you're being intentionally obstinate. I no-longer care which. Whatever man. They're definitely complicated. Nobody's arguing that.
Yes, the two eyes thing is simplistic but it's easy enough to explain the long version. The game is fine and it's survived thousands of years, hundreds with the rules they use now and few have problems with it. Certainly you and Ing and a couple others, but with the exception of certain edge cases, the rules are just fine and don't require the kind of crazy head games Ing wanted to play (they were academic anyway).
Sometimes disagreements come up at tournaments, it's true, but it's easy enough to look up in the rules and convince both players. It's pretty rare though.
It is not simple. It is rather complicated because it requires a complete understanding of alive and dead. It really only takes a few games to master, but it is indeed rather complicated.
It is a concept that the Japanese (or Korean, or Chinese, etc) would learn when they're 6 or 8 and the Japanese rules are unapologetic about being complicated. But they are not ambiguous and they are very clearly defined.
If you came to my go club, I could demonstrate and have you ready to play under Japanese rules in a matter of an hour. There's a lot to it, but it's simple once you get over the hump. Hell, you don't even need to go to my club. Hang out on KGS for a couple hours and you'll gain a complete understanding.
There is no appeal to authority. The rules are very clearly defined. You're simply choosing to not follow them. At tournaments, there are sometimes 200 people none of which would ever disagree about what is dead and what is not.
The problem is (and I can agree that this is a problem, but only for the first few games at most), that Japanese rules require that you understand alive and dead.
In games with beginners, I explain that you need two eyes and then encourage them to try to live or kill my shape. It's all quite clear after the first few times. And there's no ambiguity at all; no matter how hard you try to create some, there simply isn't any.
In any game, even amongst the most skillfull, players are encouraged to try to kill things they think are dead. There is always an ahh-hah moment were you see why you were wrong (or right). In that sense, there's no difference between the Chinese and Japanese rules. The only practical difference is that in the Japanese rules the attempt will change the score -- so you have to consider whether it's worth the attempt.
If you are unable to see what I mean, then it's clear to me you still don't understand the Japanese rules. Trust me on this: there is no ambiguity and no appeal to authority. We all understand what is alive and what is dead. But you do have to know the basics and it takes a few days to master.
Nobody I know berates the new player. We simply pass until we have to act (like the reply before last said). If they try to leave the stone there, we point out that it doesn't have two eyes, so it's dead. It's not arbitrary at all, it was explained before we began play.
This just proves my point. Only beginners see this as a problem because they don't understand life and death yet. It is most certainly well defined.
You only see these kinds of "problems" with the game when you haven't played long enough to understand the game. There really aren't any problems along the lines you're thinking. Nearly everything you said is incorrect. The Chinese vs Japanese rules do sometimes differ by a few points here and there, but rarely, and if you know which ruleset you're playing under it really shouldn't matter. In fact, if you include stone passing (see AGA Rules) then Chinese and Japanese rules work out the same. Oh, the horror.
As to the Ko rules,... yes, I've personally fretted over the dreaded triple Ko and I've been frustrated over 4 in the corner, but the triple ko never really comes up and you can play out 4 in the corner if you're obstinate. There are complicated solutions to the tripple ko, such as Ing rules, but nobody cares. It just doesn't matter.
I've also played many new players, presumably like yourself, that can't tell when a game should end. That's normal when you're starting out. What we do with those new players is keep playing until they feel like stopping and sometimes comment on why their plans don't work or why they're losing points. You see, if you keep playing in Japanese rules, you will lose points. Under Chinese rules, you simply keep playing until you get really bored, so you only need to point out that the score isn't changing and isn't likely to change. Problem solved.
The thing that really puzzles me more than anything is why you'd take the time to claim Go isn't a game. Clearly it is, people play it all the time; millions in fact. It's even televised in many Asian countries. Is it some kind of grudge? Are you a chess player that's really jealous? I don't get it. Weird.
Just because most people abuse the computer use in class, don't ruin it for those of us whose grades went from C (undergrad) to A (grad) just from typing notes instead of not taking notes. Personally, I leave my laptop in Vim and "write down" nearly everything the professor says.
I'm sure I could get an exemption, since I can show that I have disgraphia... but still. Would you want to be the one guy allowed to use a laptop in class?
I can't exactly. You'd have to really look into it. I'm also definitely not an expert on the subject. But start with the discrete log problem. Notice how it's really easy to go one way, but it's really really hard to go back the other? Nearly all of our crypto relies on this. Hashes do to. It's really easy to go md5(something) = bingo. but it's nearly impossible to go un-md5(bingo) = something. That's entirely the point. And that's exactly the kind of thing quantum will make easier. They have exact algorithms for the discrete log stuff, but any problem that relies on this asymmetry will be eventually crackable. And actually, if you look at it, the ECC stuff is really similar to the discrete log problem. It literally drops rational curve math in place of the prime powers.
ECC has nothing to do with quantum or being unique compared to what we already have. What ECC gives you is less bits per difficulty. What it also gives you is weil pairings, which allow you to do PBC (which is the exciting stuff lately) and IBE (which is where I heard about this stuff).
IBE is my only real exposure. I only read this stuff peripherally. It takes a math genius to do this stuff meaningfully since there isn't any real software yet -- just the whitepapers (lots of 'em).
My only real point is that if you have a problem that's hard because it relies on lots and lots and lots of choices in order to reverse it... that's exactly what quantum is good at.
You basically put all the possibilities in the superposition, then let it cool off to the right answer. And if there isn't an algorithm for ECC yet (and it seems you just have to modify Schor) then there will be, because it's nearly the same thing, but using elliptic curves instead of powers.
Again, I have no doubt that we'll think of something new to do after quantum hits, but there might be a few years there where regular people can't hide from the NSA's quantum machines.
A minor nit: any "hard" problem that's harder one way than the other will ultimately be attackable via quantum methods. This is true for almost any public key system including ECC. There hasn't been as much work quantum vs ECC, but only because ECC is pretty cutting edge.
It is certainly the case that you can overcome quantum attacks by using quantum crypto, but that's going to be a problem for people who have less money than banks.
One time pads are another option, but then we have to go back to the days of physically pre-sharing the keys. That's an interesting notion too... In Fire Upon the Deep, there's much ado regarding missions to deliver one time use cipher entropy to other locations using space ships.
I meant what I said. I suppose it all depends on whether you consider DRM to be offensive and whether you think they call DRM "secure" in order to hide that fact.
Agreed.
And I think we can do even better. An abbreviation isn't necessarily an initialism and an initalism isn't necessarily an acronym. I think the word he wanted was euphemism. I think it would be fantastic if someone a million times more charismatic than me started a campaign to save the word acronym from confusion with initialisms. FDA is not an acronym, but NASA is. Quick, someone make a website.
When I first heard hulu (and others) were blocking GoogleTV, I immediately imagined they were going off the user-agent string. Of course, what else could they really use? But I'm told they began blocking GoogleTV even though people were changing their user-agent string to MSIE strings. How the hell do they do it?
Your typical GoogleTV appliance will be behind a NAT gateway, and it will make relatively ordinary web requests. It's not like they're using os fingerprinting or something. The networks can't come back and scan your device. That doesn't make sense. So how would they that? Is it something in the streaming protocol (flash)? It's mysterious to me.
Reinstalling your browser doesn't clear your cookies; *especially* your flash cookies, which are troublesome to clear anyway. The only fair test that I would really believe would be changing your user agent string and hammering the reload button. I may try this myself later. Other's anecdotes are less convincing than my anecdotes (to me anyway). I need to see it; or I need to see data from a controlled experiment; I need to see one of these companies admit it; or have the FTC explain that they've done it. You know.... something credible.
Wrong. I got your point. I was talking about chess. The key to winning at moderate and high levels is memorizing. Little else matters once you memorize enough. That is the problem that AdamThor is talking about below you.
I think the point of your post is clear and correct. I'm not arguing that at all, but...
Or beginning chess players can win games by playing from memorized opening moves.
I don't actually play chess, but I know a few people who do. I think you actually have this backwards. You can get by playing the game at the low levels, but if you want to get advanced you need a really big library (of actual books) so you can memorize things. You have to get to the very very top to get back to playing.
I'm not saying there isn't a lot of thinking and analysis going on, but it appears to me (from the outside and from comments from "expert" level players) that memorization is key to winning chess at the higher levels.
Then again, I'm told (by an expert level player who hates this) that it can be hilarious to memorize archaic openings that nobody bothers with and using those as your opening, so you can hopefully get to a middle game that isn't memorized.
Seems right to me. The thing is, the TNT energy comes out really really fast and the gasoline energy is rather difficult to coax out unless you mix it with air and vaporize it just right.
Slashdot Mirror
You won, you definitely won. No question. You're fully documented. But I still don't agree that there are any problems with Japanese rules and I don't think I misinformed anyone on any point. I definitely firmly believe the AGA switched to Ing-resembling rules because of Ing and not because Japanese rules are too hard despite the public documentation. The problems are so rare they just don't matter very much.
So, whatever man.
They're filled with whatever because I don't agree with the AGA or you and never have. I've read the literature on the subject and I simply don't agree with it. The only problems with the Japanese rules are silly edge cases that rarely come up (not including bent-4, which we usually just ignore and play through at my club). The edge cases are normally resolved through discussion or by playing them out. So whatever. Hate on the rules, but they're still best.
I do have a problem with AGA and Chinese rules. They encourage players to keep going when they should really quit. I'm not aware that I've ever played anyone that seriously preferred AGA rules to Japanese rules. It's probably happened, but I'm not aware of it. We've had a few Chinese people stop by. They prefer the Chinese rules and Chinese counting... needless to say.
When the non-Japanese rules have rules to discourage people from playing impossible situations just to see if you make a mistake, maybe I'll like them a little more.
Whatever. You already won, I said so. Japanese rules suck or whatever.
We should play a game some time. I figure you probably play, otherwise I can't figure why you'd care.
I'm not blaming Ing for the Japanese rules being difficult, I'm blaming him for screwing up AGA rules. I don't know anyone who actually likes those rules. They may be easier for beginners (although that is not my experience); but they're irritating for seasoned players.
K, fine. You win. Nobody could ever play under Japanese rules. They make no sense. Although, I think it's Ing's fault. Their primary source of funding was the Ing foundation. Also, nobody I have ever met plays under any other rules than Japanese rules, except at AGA tournaments anyway -- where people play under Japanese rules and pass a stone at the end without understanding why. But I suppose you're right. Nobody could ever comprehend Japanese rules.
It's not bullshit, the rules are fine. You don't understand them yet or you're being intentionally obstinate. I no-longer care which. Whatever man. They're definitely complicated. Nobody's arguing that.
Yes, the two eyes thing is simplistic but it's easy enough to explain the long version. The game is fine and it's survived thousands of years, hundreds with the rules they use now and few have problems with it. Certainly you and Ing and a couple others, but with the exception of certain edge cases, the rules are just fine and don't require the kind of crazy head games Ing wanted to play (they were academic anyway).
Sometimes disagreements come up at tournaments, it's true, but it's easy enough to look up in the rules and convince both players. It's pretty rare though.
It is not simple. It is rather complicated because it requires a complete understanding of alive and dead. It really only takes a few games to master, but it is indeed rather complicated.
It is a concept that the Japanese (or Korean, or Chinese, etc) would learn when they're 6 or 8 and the Japanese rules are unapologetic about being complicated. But they are not ambiguous and they are very clearly defined.
If you came to my go club, I could demonstrate and have you ready to play under Japanese rules in a matter of an hour. There's a lot to it, but it's simple once you get over the hump. Hell, you don't even need to go to my club. Hang out on KGS for a couple hours and you'll gain a complete understanding.
There is no appeal to authority. The rules are very clearly defined. You're simply choosing to not follow them. At tournaments, there are sometimes 200 people none of which would ever disagree about what is dead and what is not.
The problem is (and I can agree that this is a problem, but only for the first few games at most), that Japanese rules require that you understand alive and dead.
In games with beginners, I explain that you need two eyes and then encourage them to try to live or kill my shape. It's all quite clear after the first few times. And there's no ambiguity at all; no matter how hard you try to create some, there simply isn't any.
In any game, even amongst the most skillfull, players are encouraged to try to kill things they think are dead. There is always an ahh-hah moment were you see why you were wrong (or right). In that sense, there's no difference between the Chinese and Japanese rules. The only practical difference is that in the Japanese rules the attempt will change the score -- so you have to consider whether it's worth the attempt.
If you are unable to see what I mean, then it's clear to me you still don't understand the Japanese rules. Trust me on this: there is no ambiguity and no appeal to authority. We all understand what is alive and what is dead. But you do have to know the basics and it takes a few days to master.
Nobody I know berates the new player. We simply pass until we have to act (like the reply before last said). If they try to leave the stone there, we point out that it doesn't have two eyes, so it's dead. It's not arbitrary at all, it was explained before we began play. This just proves my point. Only beginners see this as a problem because they don't understand life and death yet. It is most certainly well defined.
You only see these kinds of "problems" with the game when you haven't played long enough to understand the game. There really aren't any problems along the lines you're thinking. Nearly everything you said is incorrect. The Chinese vs Japanese rules do sometimes differ by a few points here and there, but rarely, and if you know which ruleset you're playing under it really shouldn't matter. In fact, if you include stone passing (see AGA Rules) then Chinese and Japanese rules work out the same. Oh, the horror.
As to the Ko rules, ... yes, I've personally fretted over the dreaded triple Ko and I've been frustrated over 4 in the corner, but the triple ko never really comes up and you can play out 4 in the corner if you're obstinate. There are complicated solutions to the tripple ko, such as Ing rules, but nobody cares. It just doesn't matter.
I've also played many new players, presumably like yourself, that can't tell when a game should end. That's normal when you're starting out. What we do with those new players is keep playing until they feel like stopping and sometimes comment on why their plans don't work or why they're losing points. You see, if you keep playing in Japanese rules, you will lose points. Under Chinese rules, you simply keep playing until you get really bored, so you only need to point out that the score isn't changing and isn't likely to change. Problem solved.
The thing that really puzzles me more than anything is why you'd take the time to claim Go isn't a game. Clearly it is, people play it all the time; millions in fact. It's even televised in many Asian countries. Is it some kind of grudge? Are you a chess player that's really jealous? I don't get it. Weird.
You can indeed embed the images. if memory serves.
Just because most people abuse the computer use in class, don't ruin it for those of us whose grades went from C (undergrad) to A (grad) just from typing notes instead of not taking notes. Personally, I leave my laptop in Vim and "write down" nearly everything the professor says. I'm sure I could get an exemption, since I can show that I have disgraphia... but still. Would you want to be the one guy allowed to use a laptop in class?
I can't exactly. You'd have to really look into it. I'm also definitely not an expert on the subject. But start with the discrete log problem. Notice how it's really easy to go one way, but it's really really hard to go back the other? Nearly all of our crypto relies on this. Hashes do to. It's really easy to go md5(something) = bingo. but it's nearly impossible to go un-md5(bingo) = something. That's entirely the point. And that's exactly the kind of thing quantum will make easier. They have exact algorithms for the discrete log stuff, but any problem that relies on this asymmetry will be eventually crackable. And actually, if you look at it, the ECC stuff is really similar to the discrete log problem. It literally drops rational curve math in place of the prime powers.
ECC has nothing to do with quantum or being unique compared to what we already have. What ECC gives you is less bits per difficulty. What it also gives you is weil pairings, which allow you to do PBC (which is the exciting stuff lately) and IBE (which is where I heard about this stuff).
IBE is my only real exposure. I only read this stuff peripherally. It takes a math genius to do this stuff meaningfully since there isn't any real software yet -- just the whitepapers (lots of 'em).
My only real point is that if you have a problem that's hard because it relies on lots and lots and lots of choices in order to reverse it ... that's exactly what quantum is good at.
You basically put all the possibilities in the superposition, then let it cool off to the right answer. And if there isn't an algorithm for ECC yet (and it seems you just have to modify Schor) then there will be, because it's nearly the same thing, but using elliptic curves instead of powers.
Again, I have no doubt that we'll think of something new to do after quantum hits, but there might be a few years there where regular people can't hide from the NSA's quantum machines.
A minor nit: any "hard" problem that's harder one way than the other will ultimately be attackable via quantum methods. This is true for almost any public key system including ECC. There hasn't been as much work quantum vs ECC, but only because ECC is pretty cutting edge.
the source of all human knowledge has a couple links to research on the topic.
It is certainly the case that you can overcome quantum attacks by using quantum crypto, but that's going to be a problem for people who have less money than banks.
One time pads are another option, but then we have to go back to the days of physically pre-sharing the keys. That's an interesting notion too ... In Fire Upon the Deep, there's much ado regarding missions to deliver one time use cipher entropy to other locations using space ships.
I meant what I said. I suppose it all depends on whether you consider DRM to be offensive and whether you think they call DRM "secure" in order to hide that fact.
Agreed. And I think we can do even better. An abbreviation isn't necessarily an initialism and an initalism isn't necessarily an acronym. I think the word he wanted was euphemism. I think it would be fantastic if someone a million times more charismatic than me started a campaign to save the word acronym from confusion with initialisms. FDA is not an acronym, but NASA is. Quick, someone make a website.
Seems like you could modify whatever flash reads or modify flash itself...
When I first heard hulu (and others) were blocking GoogleTV, I immediately imagined they were going off the user-agent string. Of course, what else could they really use? But I'm told they began blocking GoogleTV even though people were changing their user-agent string to MSIE strings. How the hell do they do it?
Your typical GoogleTV appliance will be behind a NAT gateway, and it will make relatively ordinary web requests. It's not like they're using os fingerprinting or something. The networks can't come back and scan your device. That doesn't make sense. So how would they that? Is it something in the streaming protocol (flash)? It's mysterious to me.
Reinstalling your browser doesn't clear your cookies; *especially* your flash cookies, which are troublesome to clear anyway. The only fair test that I would really believe would be changing your user agent string and hammering the reload button. I may try this myself later. Other's anecdotes are less convincing than my anecdotes (to me anyway). I need to see it; or I need to see data from a controlled experiment; I need to see one of these companies admit it; or have the FTC explain that they've done it. You know.... something credible.
Interesting notion though.
Wrong. I got your point. I was talking about chess. The key to winning at moderate and high levels is memorizing. Little else matters once you memorize enough. That is the problem that AdamThor is talking about below you.
I think the point of your post is clear and correct. I'm not arguing that at all, but...
Or beginning chess players can win games by playing from memorized opening moves.
I don't actually play chess, but I know a few people who do. I think you actually have this backwards. You can get by playing the game at the low levels, but if you want to get advanced you need a really big library (of actual books) so you can memorize things. You have to get to the very very top to get back to playing.
I'm not saying there isn't a lot of thinking and analysis going on, but it appears to me (from the outside and from comments from "expert" level players) that memorization is key to winning chess at the higher levels.
Then again, I'm told (by an expert level player who hates this) that it can be hilarious to memorize archaic openings that nobody bothers with and using those as your opening, so you can hopefully get to a middle game that isn't memorized.
Not totally my fault. It wasn't capitalized, so it looks like a random word, not a product.
I did not know that. I thought it was like virii or whatever.
"sandboxie"
Please don't do this. You'll regret it if you make it popular.
Seems right to me. The thing is, the TNT energy comes out really really fast and the gasoline energy is rather difficult to coax out unless you mix it with air and vaporize it just right.