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

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxx>]

Mark Boon wrote:
> I know that two passes suffices with the Tromp/Taylor
> rules, but I think forcing the game to be played to the end is cumbersome.

IIUYC, this is your opinion for human play? I disagree and you can
find many reasons in rec.games.go archives, of which just one is
that playing out the removals takes about a minute while agreeing
verbally and then removing takes about a minute, too. The removal
is not cumbersome since it takes place with both methods; it is
the verbal agreements that are cumbersome since Go is a game of
mental competition while contrarily verbal agreements are 
cooperative actions.

> The main reason I came up with this scheme is because I wanted a way to
> resolve the scoring as easily for humans as possible and have it still
> compatible with traditional scoring methods. (I'm not 100% sure this is the
> case, but someone will come up with a counter-example if there is one.)

I have too little time to produce counter-examples for every
strange game end proposal. Surely you find some looking through
my pages, see signature.

> For
> computers it's a different matter as they'll have no problem using the
> Tromp/Taylor rules, or use the Chinese rules where they have to capture all
> the dead stones.

Hear, hear:)

--
robert jasiek
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html