Re: computer-go: Computer Go Tournament Program

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:10:15 -0400
   From: John Tromp <tromp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:06:43PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:

   >     implied score = score calculated by TT rules.
   >     =================	
   > 
   >  .  A score is either provided, or implied with any pass move.  
   > 
   >  .  2 consecutive passes end the game if the coresponding scores
   >     agree.
   > 
   >  .  The game ends after 4 consecutive passes regardless of score
   >     agreement.  In this case the final score is calculated according 
   >     to TT.

   That summarizes it nicely.

   One tiny detail is the exact definition of score:
   The two main candidates are

     1) the difference of B area minus W area

     2) the pair of (B area, W area)

   Does 1) suffice or are there cases where the extra information in 2) is useful?
   A further alternative is to include the komi in the above, but I think
   it's cleaner to focus on the board score. The arbiter will then take komi into
   account to decide the winner.

   regards,
   -John



My slight preference is to include the pair score simply because it is
a more complete report of how the game ended.  Another side of me says
a single score seems more in the mathmatical spirit of simplicity that
Tromp/Taylor  is based  upon.   What do you think?    I could go  with
either.

Having just  said that, I think I  like the single score report better
now!  There is  no reason a  more complete  breakdown cannot be  added
after  the game by  the  arbiter  software  but  need not involve  the
protocol.

Feedback?

Don