> 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?
Actually, yes eventually. If that's what the programmers wanted and
they made it known. It wouldn't happen overnight but it probably
would happen sooner or later. It seems to me that people may already
be moving in that general direction.
You have more influence than most of us because you are well known and
respected as an author of a strong program. That means that if you
resist and tell everyone it's a stupid idea or won't work, you can go
a long way towards discouraging the idea. If you did the opposite, it
would get more consideration. But in the end what will matter is
whether most people really want this, not one or two.
Anyway, I'm only saying that it wouldn't hurt to be more open to the
idea. I know implementing it can't possibly be a major concern to
you. Or maybe it could be, I don't know what dependencies you have
between scoring, move generation and when to stop the game, but it
would still add value to your program just having another option.
If it's an issue of how hard it is to implement to existing programs
or the extra work involved, I don't think this should be any kind of
deciding factor. Computer Go may have a long future that makes this
consideration pretty much nil.
But I'll put this question to the group: What type of existing program
would Tromp/Taylor be really difficult to implement? I think almost
all of us agree that for a new program, Tromp/Taylor is the easiest
set to implement.
Don