Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick,

I  think you are too nice  to be a  tournament director  (what do they
call tournament directors in Go?)

I  still think you  can  be nice and get   the  job done however.   My
preference in  your list of options  is Option 2.   This is the person
most likely to  report such a problem  and if he doesn't  complain why
create trouble where it doesn't exist?

In Chess,  the winner has  the responsibility  to  report the results.
This makes a great deal of sense, since  the loser is not particularly
motivated to do so.

You also will tend  to have at least one  supporter in such cases, the
person with  the correct program.   This makes it much  more difficult
for the other   guy to complain   because he not  only lost  the  game
according to the rules  you clearly stated,  but wants  you to make  a
ruling that is unfair  to his opponent.   I wouldn't have any  trouble
making a  ruling in a  situation like this  and no one would fault you
except the player ruled against.


Don




   Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:08:20 +0100
   From: Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   References: <SSp9a8YVN8N7Ewe+@maproom.demon.co.uk>
    <200106260210.WAA28433@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 S <r1U$yfYOYEWQN42lwXtPae8U4E>
   Sender: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Precedence: bulk
   Reply-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Content-Type: text
   Content-Length: 1461

   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