Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> You, and Robert, and Don, are being idealistic about this.  You are
> considering what rules would be best for responsive and responsible
> programmers.

Yes, this is  true, but it's not so  idealistic as to be ridiculous or
silly.  I  think you can also  say that we are  taking a pragmatic and
sensible view too.   

In computer chess, this same type of issue  was resolved by making the
guiding principle  be something  that  was pretty tangible, namely  to
keep  the results  as much  out of   the hands of   the programmers as
possible (once  the game  started that is!)   For example   you cannot
accept a draw without the tournament directors permission and he won't
give   permission  unless that result  is   a  forgone conclusion, the
principle being that if there is any doubt, play it out!  This is very
pragmatic  and sensible, not idealistic.   Even resignations cannot be
accepted without TD permission  and the position  has to be completely
hopeless (otherwise is the game really over?)

This turned out to be a very useful  guiding principle, and I think it
would be   for  Go too (if  it   isn't already.)  I  don't  think this
principle is fully compatible with Japanese style scoring.

You  could also  argue  that  this is  technically  a contest  between
programmers  and de-emphasis the program itself  which seems to be the
road you are  taking.  Even though  there is definitely some truth  to
this,   I would argue  that most  people see it   as a contest between
programs,  not programmers.

I believe most  of these decisions have to  do more with  politics and
personal  preferences of the organizers, not  necessarily  what is the
most pragmatic thing to do.  However I will fully defend an organizers
right  to make these  decisions unless  s/he is under  the auspices of
some kind of guiding organization and has ceded these rights.

Having said that, it would  still be very  nice  to have some kind  of
general agreement or standardization of logical rules, and would be in
everyones best interest in my opinion.


Don


   Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:51:15 +0100
   From: Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   In message <015247E5EE39D311A43A00AA00488FDE07E821@ATTHIS_3>, Jean-
   Pierre Vesinet <jpvesinet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
   >Nick Wedd wrote:
   >
   >> I imagine that this is because programmers are unwilling to implement
   >> it.  They want their programs to play something that resembles grown-up
   >> Go.
   >
   >Yes. But maintaining the pretense creates confusion, since no program is
   >strong enough to accurately decide L&D, seki, ko, etc. at the point where
   >humans would agree to end the game.

   Yes, maintaining the pretence creates confusion.  This is regrettable,
   but I don't expect to be able to change this.

   You, and Robert, and Don, are being idealistic about this.  You are
   considering what rules would be best for responsive and responsible
   programmers.

   I am in the position of organising a tournament for flesh-and-blood
   programmers.  Some of whom will fail to read the instructions, and some
   will read them but fail to act accordingly.  I am pragmatic and cynical,
   perhaps unduly so.  My objective is to organise an event which people
   will be happy to compete in.

   Nick
   -- 
   Nick Wedd