[ggo-discussion] Re: Editing the game when playing
- From: Peter Strempel <zotan@xxxxxx>
- To: ggo-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 00:01:22 +0200
At 20:49 13.05.2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Hey all, Peter removed the edit game feature because some people complained
>that it was cheating really to edit the game and read out sequences on your
>computer instead of in your head.
Yes, that was one of the reasons. Some people complained that players using
gGo have the advantage to players using PandaEgg, which does not offer an
in-game edit feature. I understand that.
>One guy trying to read something out in his head... the other easily trying
>out long sequences of moves on their client!
>
>Anyway, better practice to read out in one's head! ;)
That is the other reason, and actually the good one. As I suck at Go pretty
much it is quite ridiculous if I give advice, but I suppose any strong
player will agree that you will never get better if you cannot read ahead
some moves in your head. After all, if you play in real life, club or
tournament, you cannot take a second board and try out some variations.
Well, you can, but I think that's a rather bad idea.
I had complained a little to a quite strong player some months ago that I
dont get past that 8k border. I asked where and how I usually play, and
when I said mainly on IGS with gGo, he asked if I use the 'Edit' feature a
lot to try out sequences. I nodded and said, I do. He answered: Then you
will never get stronger.
Quite convincing. :)
Actually, quite some people told me its good the feature is removed, as it
forces them to think themselves.
If you look at the Tango advertisment on its webpage, it tells you it makes
you stronger because you can edit your games and even ask GnuGo to make
your next move (tho never tried it). I suppose I could advertise gGo with
the sentence that it makes you stronger because it helps you to think
yourself. :)
Same with the score estimator. Learn to count if you want to improve your
Go. And on a real board you need to count yourself, too.
Peter
Other related posts:
