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

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:48 PM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: computer-go: Engineering (was: Most simple Go rules)
>
>
>
>
> Mark Boon wrote:
> > But I do prefer the Japanese rules in practise (for humans, that is).
>
> Still wondering why:)
>
> > If I somehow always magically had exactly
> > 180 stones in my bowl at the start of a game (and not lose any during),
> > without needing some weird contraption, I would probably prefer the Ing
> > rules.
>
> IIUYC, you seem to consider only exactly such rulesets that are
> already in use somewhere? If so, what about New Zealand rules?
>

Sorry that I failed to be complete. Did I mention the Strassburg rules yet?

The Chinese rules, the Tromp/Taylor rules, the NZ rules and who knows what
other, all require to play on longer and count territory and stones, which I
personally don't like because I find it more laborious. That's why I like
Japanese rules over any other rules that I'm currently aware of.

> > I believe most of the really bad stuff, like point fractions in seki,
> > have been fixed.
>
> You like to ignore rules flaws in a way that pretends their
> non-existence. I speak of the ko rules in this case. I
> understand that you do ignore flaws if the majority of players
> using a ruleset also ignores them and also pretends their
> non-existence. In case of Ing rules it is easy to do so
> because one simply assumes them to have a superko rule or
> instead to have a basic ko rule. However, I do not understand
> how you ignore the scoring flaws of Japanese rules. How do
> you actually score if you use Japanese rules? Do you use
> rules at all if you score Japanese style? IMO, you merely
> pretend to use Japanese rules while in fact you use territory
> scoring in a way a community's common sense tells you to do.
> Is that right?
>

That's not far off indeed. I did notice you find that point of view hard to
understand. Personally I would prefer to have a more sensible treatment of
seki and ko in the Japanese rules as well, but I find that rather a minor,
and not very frequent, drawback compared to the fact that those rules allow
for quick ending of the game and fairly straightforward counting, something
I'm missing in other rule-sets.

> > These two rule-sets are always highly criticised here for their
> theoretical
> > flaws. But they are used all around the world by millions of
> people who are
> > all not even aware of all their intricacies.
>
> This is the great pretence. It is not the rulesets that are used
> but some communities' common senses. It is the beginners who
> suffer the most because they neither understand the rulesets nor
> the common sense quickly. In the long run, also the communities
> suffer because of fewer beginners than might be possible
> otherwise.
>
> > And still they manage to bring
> > a game of Go to an end, each and every time, without any major problems.
>
> The reason is availability of highly developed common sense.
>

Exactly. When very precise rules start to get in the way of normal common
sense we call it bureaucracy. And I try to avoid senseless bureaucracy
whenever possible. Moreover this kind of bureaucracy will definitely not win
over any new beginners for the game.

If we can have the best of both worlds then I'm all up for it. But replacing
an existing system by a more precise but more laborious one will find very
few followers. And so far I have not seen anyone propose anything I consider
a workable alternative.

I think we all agree that rules like the Tromp/Taylor rules are the easiest
for computers. But as David already pointed out previously, it seems a bit
pointless to define rules that are only going to be used by computers. We're
trying to make a computer play a game that people play, not a game that's
played by computers only.
The fact that some of the rules are harder for computers than others is
irrelevant. We shouldn't be fiddling with the rules just because they're
difficult to program.

> > Discussing rules in theory is fine by me, but when we're discussing
> > practical rules to play by, be it for computers or humans, any
> theoretically
> > sound rule that makes it more complicated to finish a game, even if that
> > complication is minor, is useless.
>
> So IIUYC, since you ignore all rule texts, you do not mind to
> overrule them by having a protokoll game end handling for all
> of them that violates some of them but comes to a solution
> where practice often agrees theory, not as far as the game end
> methods are concerned but at least as far as the score is
> concerned?
>
> > What it all comes down to is a reasonably reliable program to
> decide which
> > stones are dead.
>
> Do you prohibit a program to know life and death better than
> your arbiter protocol? In case of Japanese scoring you have to
> be careful not to discriminate the programs scoring best.
>

Of course not. It's clear you still don't get the gist. When anyone
disagrees with the arbiter there's a way to continue to prove their point.

> > Oh, by the way, I don't know what the "pass-for-ko" rule is in
> the Japanese
> > ruling, but I doubt I'll ever need to. It's certainly no reason
> for me to
> > assume the Japanese rules are unusable.
>
> This is some evidence for my remarks above that you do not play
> using rules but that you play using communities' common senses.
>

Indeed I only play using common sense and only follow the most trivial
rules.