Re: computer-go: Computer Go Tournament Program

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   From: John Tromp <tromp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:58:48PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
   > What do you think of this, based on John Tromp's idea:
   >  . A pass move must include a players notion of the score.  A valid
   >    score to report is "undefined." 

   In other words, A pass MAY include a players notion of the score.

   >  . The game is over when 2 passes in a row occur with the same
   >    agreed upon score OR no legal moves are available for one side.  

   Availability of moves has little to do with it. How about:

     . The game is over after 2 consecutive passes with identical proposed
       score (in which case that is the final score)
       OR after 4 consecutive passes (in which case the board is scored as-is)

I was trying to cover   the case where a  player  refuses to pass.   I
assume this is an issue of semantics, right?   You always have a legal
move because passing is a legal move.


   >  . There is no limit to the number of pass moves a player may make.

   That doesn't have to be specified as a rule. It goes without saying:)

   >  . If a game ends without an agreed upon score,  an arbiter scores
   >    according to a strict Tromp/Taylor end of game scoring.

   Already included above.

   regards,
   -john


So  this is   pretty much  the   same protocol you  described   as the
extension to Tromp/Taylor.  In fact I  think I prefer the agreement of
which stones to consider dead or removable because this would probably
makes the traditionalists happier and is closer to common practice.


For reference, here is text from John Tromps previous email to the
extension:

> 6.As a practical shortcut, the following amendment allows "dead stone removal": 
>     After only 2 consecutive passes, the players may end the game by agreeing on which points to empty.
>     After 4 consecutive passes, the game ends as is. 
>
> So the simplest protocol is that after 2 passes, both programs inform the
> arbiter of their idea of the score, and if equal, that's the result
> (whether correct under perfect play is irrelevant). If not, then play
> resumes. There's no need to inform each program of the other's claim.
> The side for whom scoring-as-is is advantageous can just pass,
> while the other side will presumably proceed to capture some dead stones,
> to avoid the 4 pass clause.
> This may continue for any number of times, until either
> -agreement is reached after 2 passes
> -4 consecutive passes occur
> -or time runs out.