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

[Jean-Pierre Vesinet <jpvesinet@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Christian Nentwich wrote:
> > It's not the protocol that is difficult to implement. It is 
> the semantics of
> > "dead".
> 
> That's the whole point. This protocol defines the semantics 
> of dead. If
> black can't demonstrate life, the stones are dead, no scope 
> for arguing.
 
Since you mentioned dead stones, I assumed you meant Japanese rules. They do
leave a scope for arguing. However it could be a good thing that the true
meaning of life be hidden to mere mortals. ;-)

For Taylor-Tromp rules, there is no need to specify a dead stone list since
you can continue to play normally in case of disagreement. 
The protocol was clearly specified by John Tromp a few days ago. After two
passes, the player either agree on the score (and pass twice again in
succession) or continue to play.

If there is no agreement and both players pass again, then there is a
problem; the referee program could then score the position as is, or decide
that both players loose. What do you prefer?

If you want to support any kind of ruleset in the protocol how do you
propose to demonstrate life?

Jean-Pierre Vesinet