[Computer-go] Combinatorics of Go

[Kahn Jonas]

> I think you have perhaps misunderstood. As I read it, Arthur was refering to 
> his own analytic result (1.232) as being "on the high side", not John's 
> result in the paper. Arthur is implicitly assuming that John's number is 
> correct (which I think we all are), and then rationalising what the 
> discrepancy is between his analytic result and John's. Personally I found his 
> analysis very helpful.
>
> The way I read the reply from Jonas, he is similarly is referring to Arthur's 
> calculation, not John's (specifically he is referring to Arthur's reasoning), 
> other than that he also is assuming implicitly that John's calculation is 
> correct.

I cannot speak for Arthur, but my answer was indeed specific to the quick
and (not so?) dirty estimate by Arthur. I did not refer in any way to
Tromp's result, nor did I try to get a real estimate.

Jonas