Re: computer-go: Most simple Go rules

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxx>]

David Fotland wrote:
> I think I said "Counting takes longer", not scoring takes longer, above :)

So probably I have misunderstood you here, sorry:)

> Even if you choose Chinese scoring, the game usually ends with two passes
> with dead stones still on the board
> in human-human games.

But I think that we are talking about computer-computer games,
aren't we? :) When we decide on setting up a logical ruleset,
we have the options

(1) to end the game by two successive passes, or

(2) to have an optional agreement phase to let the computers
attempt an agreement (a la John Tromp;) ) and let them 
communicate for themselves about it and then in case of an
agreement end the game by two successive passes or then in
case of a disagreement (very likely) let them continue 
alternate play and then let the game end by two successive
passes.

(3) No doubt, (2) could be made much more complicated if we
allow human interaction, too.

***

I favour (1) because of simplicity, sic!

> If you are talking about igowin, then yes, many faces is much, much stronger.

Ah, I see, fine!

> Sorry, not political, real.

Nice! Everybody here judges about the best choice for logical
rules using good reasoning only. Very nice indeed:)

> The various ko rules are a more difficult issue.

Are they? Is there any reason to prefer anything else than
positional superko for the set of logical rules?

> >As said before, a major purpose of having a set of logical
> >rules is to apply it everywhere.
> And how would you force the organizers to do this?

An agreement here by this list is something to work with.
Participants of this list will be likely to adopt the agreed
upon logical set of rules if they are the tournament organizers.
Otherwise participants can convince organizers, maybe not
all immediately but more and more. Also in Asia there are many
people who prefer logical rulesets. The more logical an acitivity
is the higher the percentage of such organizers is. CG is one of
the most logical go activities available and furthermore it has
a tradition of demanding a logical ruleset.

> There is a new contest this
> August in Guiyang.

I am not speaking of hurried activity but about a development
of having more and more tournaments with the logical ruleset.

> I doubt you have informed the organizer of your logical
> rules :)

It would be the commonly accepted ruleset of the international
CG mailing list.

***

The rest is OT.

> >Both are the most illogical. Using them means PRETENDING to
> >use rules while in fact only politically preferred scoring
> >styles are enforced.
> I guess I don't understand what you mean by "Politically".

Illogcal rules fail to define scoring. Using such rules
nevertheless means to determine something that nobody can
prove to be the score but that everybody pretends to be the
right score. The purpose of illogical rules is not to define
the rules but to pretend that one could define scoring in
a way that lets everybody who does not study the rules
carefully believe that the rules would have a definition. In
fact they are only a front to hide the impossibility of a
definition. If such illogical rules were not political, then
they or their proponents would admit that they cannot achieve
what they are meant to define. Proponents, however, always
try to maintain pretence that no problem whatsoever would
even exist. I call this politics.

> It would seem very strange to me if
> a Japanese tournament didn't use Japanese rules, since those are the rules
> used by all players
> in Japan.

Players in Japan do not use Japanese rules but they use what
they believe that Japanese rules should be expected to define.
The players use a community's common sense instead of a rules
interpretation. IMO, programs have too little AI capabilities
to adapt a community's common sense;)

--
robert jasiek