Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <200106251340.JAA26029@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Don Dailey
<drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>
>The biggest issue   for  me is  that computers  should  be requred  to
>determine their own  fate.   There needs  to be  a logical irrefutable
>conclusion  (like   two   succesive   passes)  with   no    room   for
>dis-agreements, and arbritation.

"needs"?  Such a logical irrefutable conclusion would be very nice, but
I doubt it's going to happen.

>   Scoring the final result should not
>be a   complicated procedure involving  a room  full  of entities.  It
>should be  handle  by the  computers alone, it's   their game.

Yes, you don't have to convince anyone that this is would be a Good
Thing.  Meanwhile, for those of us who have to live in the real world ..

>  If the
>computers disagree on the results,  then one (or both)  has a bug  and
>the actual score can be determined via Tromp/Taylor.

.. this is what ends up happening.  As I understand it, Tromp-Taylor
assumes that all stones left on the board after two passes are alive.
Enforcing this is going to cause a lot of unhappiness among the
entrants.

I feel that I am in the position of a schoolteacher organising a
rounders game for six-year-olds.  I don't want to play with a hard ball
and have half of them go home in tears.  I want them all to have a good
time.

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd