[pbmserv] Broadcast kiwibill hi

[Bill Taylor <W.Taylor@math.canterbury.ac.nz>]

Cameron asks:-

->  . o o x x x .
->  o o o x x x x
->  o o o . x x x
->  o o o . x x x
->  o o o . x x x
->  o o o o x x x
->  . o o o x x .
->
->How do these cells affect scoring - are they just treated as a neutral 
->territory and ignored?

You have opened a can of worms.

This is part of the ongoing world-wide dispute between proponents of "area"
rules - Chinese, Taiwanese, Kiwis, & all abstract gamers and computer types;
and the Japanese and (by default) the rest of the world, and lovers of
tradition who don't mind the absurdities inherent in the "territory" rules.

You may guess which I support.

In area rules, prisoners are ignored, spaces AND stones on the board are scored,
and in the above position, it is still valuable to play; the first mover
will score two extra points and the other, one.

In territory rules, prisoners are kept, and added to the score of spaces
ONLY, ignoring the points with stones actually on them; so in the above
position it doesn't matter who or even if anyone fills the middle three.

In almost every position, there is no difference between the two, except
for a 1-point difference in 50% of games, depending on who gets to move last.
But there are exceptionally rare positions where it makes a LOT of difference.
They virtually never occur in real games.

More to the point, it is vastly easier to word, referee, and computerise
the area rules; the territory rules require a vast rule-book with a huge
number of special cases, (and even then are not logically correct, 
in most folks' opinions).   The area rules take about half a page!

I'm sure that was more than you wanted to know!

kiwibill