Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[David Fotland <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:25 AM 6/26/2001 -0400, you wrote:

> David,
>
> Any thing that   is possible can be  done  and justified, but what  is
> being explored  is  a simplification and a  suggested standardization.
> You make a point by point defense of keeping and using several scoring
> formats that you have already implemented, but the discussion is about
> using a  single logical scoring system.  You  didn't make  a case that
> all these other system  are very logical, only that  they all had some
> kind of workaround or justification.
I don't object to an attempt at standardization, but I don't see how it can 
affect
anything other than a few minor tournaments in Europe.  I guess that makes
me a pessimist :)  I think Japanese and Korean tourmanents will continue to use
Japanese rules, but with different komi.  I think Chinese tournaments will 
use Chinese
rules, and I think the Ing tournament will continue to use Ing 
rules.  Since these are
major tournaments, the programmers will certainly be forced to implement 
Japanese
and Ing rules to compete there.  You are forcing the programmers to implement a
3rd rule set.  Admittedly it is an easy one to implement, but it is still 
more work.




> You  are  ignoring the main  point   of simplification, and pretending
> there are no  advantages to doing  it a different way.  With something
> like Tromp/Taylor  (which is  NOT a  great burden  to implement by the
> way) the  protocol  is 2 passes  and  both  computers report  the same
> score.   The computers will   not disagree unless  the programmers are
> brain dead.
I haven't read tromp/taylor for a while.  Do they require that all dead 
stones be removed
before passing?  If so, then I expect that no human uses them.  Doesn't it seem
strange to ask programs to play go using a procedure that no human 
uses?  I'm trying
to make a program that plays go (by which I mean the game that people 
play), not some
other game designed for computers, even if it is very similar :)



>    How many different rule-sets do you think the programmers should
>    implement?
>
> For tournaments they  should implement a  single  agreed upon ruleset.
> But for commercial use programmers  should implement every ruleset  in
> common use and provide toggling of elements of these sets.
Do you really think you will get the Ing foundation or the Japanese go 
association
to change the rules they use for computer go?



> The fact    remains that something   like  Tromp/Taylor  is absolutely
> trivial to implement, eliminates  a great deal of man/machine protocol
> and would make it much easier for beginning Go programmers to get this
> part of  the game right.  This  last  point is  important, it's not in
> your (our) best interest to discourage them in  any way.  I'm speaking
> partly for myself here because I am a beginner.
Communicating tromp/taylor as a good way for beginners to start is a good
idea, since it makes things easier.  I started with Japanese counting 
internally,
and switch to Chinese later, so it would have saved me some time.  But I think
that getting whatever rules right is very trivial in comparison to good 
static group strength
evaluation, so I don't think you are saving much.

David


> Don
>
>
>    David
>
>
>    >regards,
>    >
>    >%!PS                       %  -John Tromp (http://www.cwi.nl/~tromp/)
>    >42 42 scale 7 9 translate .07 setlinewidth .5 setgray/c{arc clip fill
>    >setgray}def 1 0 0 42 1 0 c 0 1 1{0 3 3 90 270 arc 0 0 6 0 -3 3 90 270
>    >arcn 270 90 c -2 2 4{-6 moveto 0 12 rlineto}for -5 2 5{-3 exch moveto
>    >9 0 rlineto}for stroke 0 0 3 1 1 0 c 180 rotate initclip}for showpage
>
>    David Fotland
David Fotland