Re: computer-go: Engineering (was: Most simple Go rules)

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   From: "Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   > [mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David Fotland
   > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:53 AM
   > To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   > Subject: Re: computer-go: Engineering (was: Most simple Go rules)
   >
   >
   > At 02:52 PM 6/27/2001 -0400, you wrote:
   >
   >
   > >Your  protocol  has some  appeal  and  suggests an   OPTIONAL protocol
   > >similar to yours which would work fine for  chinese style scoring: let
   > >a player pass with a score announcement  and the next player can agree
   > >with this score and pass thereby ending the game.  Or he can continue.
   >
   > This is quite unfair to the first player that passes, since the second
   > player has the
   > option of accepting an incorrect score that is in his favor.  To be fair,
   > each program would have
   > to announce a score to the arbiter, and be told if there is a
   > disagreement,
   > but not which
   > score was higher.
   >

   That will not be necessary. You assume the game ends after two consecutive
   passes. The easiest solution is to have the game end after four consecutive
   passes. The game could actually end after three consecutive passes, but then
   you have to make sure not to punish the player who passed twice by giving
   his opponent an extra prisoner.('prisoner', not 'point', so it will work
   both with Japanese and Chinese scoring.)


Hi Mark, 

I like  your scoring  protocol,  but I  think  Daves is  simpler.  The
prisoner award seems a  little awkward to   me and all the  passes and
communication perhaps could be simplified (or maybe not.)

Maybe Dave's protocol   doesn't properly address  Japanese scoring and
yours   does.   I  would definitely   prefer   using Daves   idea  for
Tromp/Taylor.

Personally    I don't think   Japanese  scoring can  be done correctly
without human arbitration  but perhaps it  can be done "fairly" with a
very simple agreement protocol.

With  Tromp/Taylor you  don't actually  need a  protocol other  than 2
passes but the idea was to make it possible to end the game quicker by
agreement.  If this  was implemented it makes  sense to  have an equal
protocol  for  any kind of  scoring.   It really should  be absolutely
trivial to  implement or people   are less likely  to  go for it.  The
protocol would be better if it there  was only one that worked equally
well with all rulesets.
  
Don