Re: computer-go: Example of Good Core Rules of Play for CG

[Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <200106251249.IAA25826@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Don Dailey
<drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

>I would certainly think that entry to any event would make you want to
>understand the rules.  In fact, wouldn't  this be your responsibility?
>Especially if it might cause you to lose?

It would be my responsibility, yes.  This does not mean that everyone
will perform it.

>Do the Go programmers really need this MTV style of presentation where
>everything is    pre-digested for them and    they probably won't even
>remember that?

Yes.  It's better than not providing it for them.


Here is a story, which some of you will have heard before.

Ing98, like all ING CG events, had rules which allowed suicide.  I
tested all the entrants for their ability to handle a suicide move by
their opponent.
   Half of the programs handled suicide correctly.
   Most of the rest refused to allow a suicide move.  One of them even
displayed a polite message explaining that suicide is illegal.
   One played so badly that I was never able to try to make a suicide
move against it.
   One allowed me to make a suicide move, but left my suicided stones on
the board.  This allowed some interesting strategies, as the suicided
stones were now almost invulnerable - it could not capture them by
filling their last liberty, as they had no liberty.  (If you are
interested in such things, you can work out how I could carelessly lose
them through a snapback-like sequence.)

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd