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

["Grajdeanu, Adrian" <adrian.grajdeanu@xxxxxxx>]

Yeah, Christian, I think you're on the right track. This is what humans do,
this is what the game is, so this is what computers should do.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Nentwich [mailto:c.nentwich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, 02 July, 2001 09:58
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: computer-go: Engineering (was: Most simple Go rules)
> 
> 
> 
> >    White: that group is dead
> >    Black: no it's not
> >    White: try me
> >    Black: <moves>
> >    White: <moves>
> >    Black: ok, it's dead
> >    Ex:
> >
> >    White: that group is dead
> >
> >    Which group?  how do you define group?   Which computer 
> starts the
> >    negotiation process?   etc.
> 
> Ok, first a reply to the other posts: I am not inventing a 
> new protocol. This 
> is the protocol that I see in use everywhere. Setting aside 
> computer-go 
> competitions, it has quite a bit of paedagogic value.
> 
> Now.
> 
> White: These stones are dead <a5,a4,f5,g7>
> Black: <assesses life&death> I wish to challenge
> White: Accepted
> Black: plays move
> White: plays move
> ....
> Black: I give up
> White: These stones are dead <a5,a4,f5,g7,new stones>
> Black: <retrieves cached result> Agree
> 
> Why is this difficult to implement?
> 
> Christian
>