Re: computer-go: Computer Go Tournament Program

[John Tromp <tromp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>      . 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.

Yes, you always have pass as a legal move. What do you mean by a player
"refusing to pass"?

> 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.

Ok, that is fine with me too. But ever so slightly less simple. After all,
human game records never mention which stones were considered dead, to arrive
at the final score, so in a way it is redundant. Also, relaying that
information to the opponent would complicate the protocol.

I'm not sure it would make traditionalists happier. Anyone feel
covered by that term and feel like commenting?

Finally, you are correct it is closer to common practice; for humans, that is.
Humans find the counting more difficult than communicating group status.
For computers, the opposite is the case, and relaying just the score is easier.

regards,
-John