[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: computer-go: gnu-go agreement protocol
Yes, the Tromp/Taylor rules are very much based on all your
considerations. It turns out that after much discussion of all the
early agreement ideas, something very simple is possible that is in
the same spirit as Tromp/Taylor as an extension. More importantly to
me, it is purely optional, no program is required to use it or even
know about it.
You make a good point about the motivation for playing it out to the
end, it's not a big deal with computer vs computer. If this protocol
wasn't trivial to implement, I would definitely not even consider it.
I am going to implement this protocol in my program and see if anyone
else does too.
I'm also trying to look a little farther ahead than just considering
this a dumb "anal" commputer/computer mechanized interface. I think
this ruleset has real value for human players too, especially Go
beginners.
So I envision the early agreement protocol as implementable in a human
GUI type of interface too. How it might work is that the human (or
computer) can mark dead stones (with a mouse for instance), and the
interface will convert this to a score using the exact agreement
protocol we have been trying to define.
There is no reason that something like this can't be done in purely
human games on a physical board too, with agreed upon shortcuts that
are compatible with Tromp/Taylor scoring.
Don
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sai To Wang <saitowang_go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi everyone,
IMO, in a computer vs computer game, if there is no
human involve in the scoring, the Japanese scoring
rule is not adequate because of the current computer
program strength.
Is the same for the “two consecutive passes” kind of
end game protocol.
What we are doing is designing a protocol that need to
meet some requirement like:
low complexity
play through network like Internet and LAN
accurately determine the winner or draw
force both player to follow the rules that they
agreed. (not the end game part)
...
Other art kind of thing are mostly not necessary.
For me, the major reason to make a development like
this is for program to easily play to other program
with minimum human supervision, gathering as much
feedback as possible, so that the program’s strengths
and weaknesses can be verify much easier and with more
accuracy. That’s one way to help to make a stronger
program.
So, the scoring part of the protocol can be like this:
if one player resign, he losses.
always play until no legal move possible OR the only
legal move is to fill in one of the last two eyes of
any group except seki. (the arbiter may give the stop
signal ?)
use Chinese scoring.
We all know that the use of Japanese scoring rules
require much more skill. And the possibility of
disagreement in winning or losing judgment between
Japanese and Chinese scoring is negligible for the
current program strength.
Is true that make the game end some 100 play before
the everything is fill up make the game prettier and
cleaner for human to read, but only the person want to
read to the end.
It is too early to say that we are developing a
program to play “Like” human, is more likely that we
need a program to play decent GO first.
Sai To
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/