Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <200106260210.WAA28433@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Don Dailey
<drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

>Is it really that difficult to insist that a program knows how to play
>legally?   

I think we all agree that a program that is detected trying to make an
illegal move forfeits the game.  The question is, who is required to
detect, or entitled to alert, an illegal move.

Option 1.
Illegal moves only result in forfeiture if alerted by the opponent
program.

Option 2.
Illegal moves result in forfeiture if alerted by the opponent
programmer.

Option 3.
Illegal moves result in forfeiture if alerted by anyone.

Option 4.
Illegal moves always result in forfeiture.  The TD is obliged to ensure
this, if necessary by obtaining and examining game records. if alerted
by the opponent program.


Option 1 raises the question, what happens if a program alerts as
illegal a move that was in fact legal.  Yes, I know that in an ideal
world, this will never happen.  In the real world, with imperfect
programmers, and at least three forms of superko rule, I will not be
surprised to see it happen.

Option 3 allows a biassed kibitzer to (have a remote chance of)
affecting the outcome of games, by reporting infractions by one side
only.  I don't like that.

Option 4 obliges the TD to obtain and examine game records, preferably
before the draw for the next round.  This is a job which I am most
reluctant to take on.


I vote for option 2.

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd