Re: computer-go: Fast scoring program?

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxx>]

"Grajdeanu, Adrian" wrote:
> TT scoring does not capture the sprit of the game.

Such a statement is pointless because you do not define
"spirit of the game".

> Counting dead stones as
> points instead of prisonners and territory is bad.

What is this supposed to say? That
score = number of dead stones
is worse than
score = prisoners plus territory
?
No doubt, the first does not make sense at all.
Inhowfar are prisoners not points?
To summarize, I do not understand your sentence at all.

> Playing inside own territory is bad.

In which context?

Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> TT scoring does   indeed capture the  spirit  of  the game.

Same remark as above for you.

> Japanese
> scoring is  just a shortcut way  to evalute the  end result before the
> game actually ends.   

Using the word "end" here is a little dangerous because it
can have multiple meanings:
- the game end (just before applying the score definition)
- the state created by applying the score definition
- the state after mechanically counting the score
- the state after the result agreement

> In my opinion, you should be training your NN  to understand the WHOLE
> game, not just the part humans play  (which does not include that full
> end game.)

Similarly "play" as you use it can have even more meanings.

> That is why I say TT captures  the true spirit of the game
> and Japanese does not.

Your point seems to be that "spirit" ends at the state created
by applying the score definition. Why? Is it not necessary for
a program to count the score, to reconfirm the result and the 
winner, and to make a result agreement?

Again let me ask: What is the spirit of the game? To put it
differently: What is a game of go? When does ot start, when
does it end, when do players/programs perform competition?
A game starts from the empty board, then competition performs
actions defined as legal by the rules, then the rules define
termination of that performance so that their definition of
the winner can be applied, then that definition is applied.
We still need a context of tournament rules: Is it the task 
of the rules of play to determine the winner or is the task of
the players/programs? Depending on the answer, the final end
of a game differs, the final end of skill differs, and 
counting, reconfirmation, and result agreement may or may not
be part of a game or of skill during it. So the "spirit of
competition" is not given per se but only due to the priorly
given rules of play together with the tournament rules. Even
more confusingly, special rulesets like Japanese style rules
may temporarily take any skill from the players to the rules
themselves (during the scoring application) and thereafter
give skill back to the players, who then may or may not be 
able to interpret the score application, to count, to
reconfirm, to agree on the result.

> You are trying   to teach your  program  to  have subtle  end of  game
> scoring  sense,  by using   the japanese  model  somehow, which   just
> supplies the answer for it  and does not  let it make the mistakes  it
> needs to learn with.

For AI or NN programs different rulesets could be used for
the score definition and independently of this different
rulesets and their interpretation could be used as models
for strategic evaluation during late stages of the game.
E.g. my commentary on the Nihon Kiin 1989 rules is still
useful for strategy if the program plays with TT rules for
the score definition.

--
robert jasiek