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

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 11:33:43 +0100
   From: Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   In message <200106290101.VAA21178@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Don Dailey
   <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
   >   >   If either player passes, the arbiter calculates a score and informs
   >   >   both parties.   If both parties agree, the game is over.
   >
   >   I am not sure how to interpret this.
   >
   >   If both parties agree that Black has won by 2 points, but "really" White
   >   has won, then who has won?
   >
   >   If both parties agree that Black has won, but they disagree about the
   >   winning margin, and "really" White has won, then who has won?
   >
   >   Nick
   >   -- 
   >   Nick Wedd
   >
   >
   >Whatever both parties agree  on is who won.  The  whole idea is to let
   >the computers come to an agreement, otherwise there is no point.

   I see.  The parties must agree on who has won, otherwise the game goes
   to arbitration.  The winning margin is only given for the interest of
   the onlookers.

   What incentive is there for a program to admit that it has lost?  It
   must be better to say "I have won by 42 points", and hope that the
   arbiter will spot something that the program had missed.


Actually I meant  to  say they should   agree  on the score.    If the
context  of this discussion    is a consideration  of  Tromp/Taylor or
something close, then there is little incentive to lie about the score
unless you simply  want  to make  yourself look foolish.   If you know
what the score is and  you are losing, and you  know that the opponent
knows what the score is,  then playing it out is  just an excercise to
make you look amateurish.  But you would have that option and I defend
a players right  to  play it out.  (I   don't see any  reason to bully
beginners by getting annoyed that they want to play it out.)

Don


   Nick
   -- 
   Nick Wedd