Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <200106251541.LAA19371@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Don Dailey
<drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>
>> 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.   

Sure.  I did not mean to accuse you of being ridiculous or silly.
Rather the reverse.  I compare you with the cruel head teacher, who
wants my class of six-year-olds to play with a hard ball  :-)

>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.

Yes.  It's like a TV quiz show, where the audience are meant to believe
that it is all fair and spontaneous, but really some of it is scripted
to maximize the entertainment value.  In CG, it is the competitors
rather than the audience who have to be kept happy.  They, and the
sponsors, won't like it if their are too many losses by forfeiture.
This applies more strongly in local events, like EGC, where many of the
entrants will be new programs rather than world leaders.
    
>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.

I agree.  I am hoping that Bob Myers is following this thread, and will
help to set some kind of standard for non-East-Asian CG events.

How do you think I should have handled the following, from MSO4?  MSO4
was a world-class CG event, with some of the world's best programs
playing.

   . . . . . . . O X X . . . . . . . X X
   . . . . . . O O O X . X X X X . . X O
   . . . O . . O X X X X O O O . X . X O
   . . . , . . . O X , X X O X X , X O O
   O . O O O . . O X X . X . O . X . X O
   X O O X O X X O X O . X . X X . X X O
   X X X X X O O . O X X X X X X X . X O
   O O X . X X O O O O X O X O O X X O O
   . O O X . X X O . . O O O O O O O . O
   . . O X X X X O O O O O . X O , O O O
   . . O O O X O X X . X . X X O O O O X
   . O X X O O O O X X X X X O O X X O X
   . O O X . O X X . X O X O O X X X X X
   O O O X X X X O X X O O O O O X O X X
   X X X X . X O O X X O X O X X X O O X
   . X . O O X O X X X X X X X X X X O O
   X X O . . O O O X X O O O O O X O O .
   X O O . . O X X X X O . X O . O . . .
   X X O . . O O O . X X X . X X O . . .

Both players have passed.  How should the game be scored?

What I did was resolve this as I would with (not very good) humans.  I
asked both programmers to ask their programs about the status of the
groups involved.  Both programs agreed that the large black group was
dead.  Therefore I declared White the winner.  (In fact, if these
programs had been not-very-good humans, there would have been no
problem.  They would just have removed 78 black "prisoners" from the
board, and no-one would have known that anything odd had happened.)

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd