Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[David Fotland <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chinese scoring is more logical that Japanese scoring because it avoids all the
special cases (bent 4, x points without capturing, etc).  But regular Chinese
scoring has the problem that it takes longer to count than Japanese, and 
counting destroys
the position.  Ing tried to fix the counting problem, but requires 360 
stones in the bowls at the
start of the game.  AGA rules fix the counting problem, by letting you 
count in the Japanese,
high speed fashion.  But AGA rules are Chinese scoring in disguise, since 
they give the same
answer as Chinese scoring, not Japanese.

David



At 10:45 PM 6/24/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Dailey" <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules
>
>
> >    From: Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >    What really worries me is usage of illogical rules in CG
> >    tournaments while everybody knows about the advantages of
> >    logical rules for programming. Sponsorship is a weak argument
> >    because the AGA gets much attention from Asian professionals
> >    despite their logical rules. Cultural tradition is an even
> >    weaker argument these days when professionals from all big
> >    go playing countries spread go. So why must every tournament
> >    organizer and programmer suffer from implementing more than
> >    one ruleset, one worse than the other?!
> >
> > I totally  agree.  They should attempt to  use  a ruleset for computer
> > competition that leads to the least problems and is most logical.
> >
> > Don
>
> I would appreciate hearing both of your thoughts on
>
> 1) In what respect do you consider the AGA rules "logical"?
>
> 2) What ruleset would you consider ideal for a computer go tournament?
>
> --
> Bob Myers
David Fotland