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

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

It seems we disagree on a large number of points. That number would be
greatly reduced however if you'd read what I write a bit more carefully  and
try to understand it instead of writing criticism on impulse.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 3:02 PM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: computer-go: Engineering (was: Most simple Go rules)
>
>
>
>
> Mark Boon wrote:
> > In any ruleset there must be an arbiter who gives the final score.
>
> If we speak of tournament rules, yes, more or less. However,
> some tournament rulesets allow the players to create a final,
> wrong result agreement that even an arbiter may not change.
>
> > I see a lot of people saying that playing to the end is no problem for
> > humans. I agree it's usually not a huge amount of work, but it
> shows little
> > understanding of human play in reality.
>
> What do you call "human play in reality?" Do you observe what
> happens due to some rules or do you collect data what players
> would prefer if they were allowed to choose? Surely, different
> players have different preferences. Furthermore different
> periods of time have had different preferences.
>
> > The Japanese rules have come into
> > existence exactly because playing out to the end is troublesome and a
> > quicker way of getting to the end-result has evolved.
>
> This is a reasonable theory. However, inhowfar did they notice
> the effects of their changes? Did they even notice that they
> added a group gift?
>
> > We all know that the
> > Japanese rules have theoretical problems, but they are very practical
>
> Could you please explain this? I consider them to be very
> impractical because
> - scoring includes more than the board
> - prisoners must be kept correctly
> - cheating with prisoners is possible
> - beginners do not understand what is scored
> - players do not understand exactly why something is scored
> - referees often fail to explain exactly players why something
> is scored
> - the game procedures are by far too complex
> - there are too many exceptions and gaps
> - counting destroys the position
> - counting allows cheating
> - counting easily allows accidental mistakes
> - counting is slower than point by point half counting for
> Chinese scoring
>

Hahahaha! Sorry, I shouldn't be laughing at you but couldn't help myself
here.

> > and
> > fullfill a human need to speed up the end of the game.
>
> Since there are so many possible sources for accidental
> or intentional mistakes, I have to be so careful in
> practice that Japanese counting is very slow. You think
> I am too anxious? Not so, I have already experienced too
> many mistakes! E.g. Guo Juan reconfirms every close result
> after counting by replaying the entire game in a tournament.
>
> > No matter what you guys argue, I'm absolutely convinced that if
> people have
> > the option of playing to the bitter end,
>
> "the bitter end" should be called "a clear end".
>
> > or they get the (same) result
> > several dozen meaningless
>
> If they were meaningless, then they would not change the score.
>

Exactly my point.

> > moves before that, a vast majority of people is
> > going to opt for ending the game early.
>
> Why would you not simply allow either option - playing out
> or not playing out? With the impractical Japanese rules you
> do not even have this option.
>

I do allow that option.

> > Since the title was 'Most simple Go rules' I'm going to argue
> here that most
> > simple Go rules for humans are the Japanese rules.
>
> For what concept of simplicity and how do you justify it then?
>
> > - Chinese rules are cumbersome in counting.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > - Ing rules are much better in that respect.
>
> Yes, but they are still in the same class of rulesets that all
> destroy the final position.

Not the way Chinese counting destroys them.

>
> > Whatever people may think about
> > the Ing rules, at least they are an honorable attempt to make
> the process of
> > ending the game and counting as simple as possible.
>
> "honourable attempt" is justified, even though the result has
> been a failure.

Your point being?

>
> > - The Tromp/Taylor rules will have similar counting problems as
> the Chinese
> > ones.
>
> Inhowfar?! Tromp-Taylor do not even specify any counting method!
> Any problems would come from assigning a bad rather than a good
> counting method to them.
>

You'd have not much choice but to have a messy and destructive counting
method as in Chinese rules.


> > And it forces to make many
>
> On average 30 is a reasonable guess. Calling this "many" is
> an exaggeration.

Sigh...

>
> > more moves than usually necessary.
>
> It depends on what you count. If you count stones put on the
> board _before_ scoring, then you are right. If you count the
> game tree necessary to prove stones' status, the you are the
> most wrong since a hypothetical game tree consists of many
> lines of playing out instead of only one line.
>
> ***

?!?

>
> If you are really so bothered about numbers of stones put
> on the board, then why don't you count prisoners twice since
> you have to put them on the board twice?
>
> > - The Japanese rules work very well in real life play,
>
> Apparently, this depends on the players and what they want
> to perceive.

Sigh again.

>
> > as we all have experienced.
>
> I have not, see above.
>

Obviously you have not. But most people that I know did.

> > So now you may understand better what I'm trying to accomplish, which is
> > adding a simple protocol
>
> I do appreciate efforts of finding protocols that properly
> deal with all rulesets.
>
> > allowing for a
> > simple dispute resolving mechanism.
>
> Simple dispute mechanisms are deceiptive. You might be able
> to check illegal moves under logical rules, however, you will
> have greater problems with hardware failures, unsportsmanlike
> behaviour of the players or of kibitzes, and a general ethical
> system of disputes that reasonably combines rules of play,
> tournament rules, and their combination.
>
> > The whole argument about ko is just academic.
>
> If you compare superko with basic ko plus a long cycle rule,
> then you are more or less right, however, the practical
> consequences of the pass-for-ko-rule (or a substituting set
> of precedental rules) are practical problems that are not
> just academic.
>
> --
> robert jasiek
>
>