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

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Playing out an obvious ending can be done extremely fast, or it's
just not that obvious.

Don



   Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 23:50:39 +0200
   From: Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   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