Re: [computer-go] 2nd KGS Computer Go Tournament

["Paul Tabor" <paul@xxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> On 5/9/05, Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >Sure you can; if there is a dispute regarding a seki (one side claiming the
> > >other is dead) you play it out. Now the proper playout is: pass; pass.
> > >in which case, since neither side has made any non-pass moves,
> > >the position is (correctly) scored as-is. And if one side does make moves,
> > >then it's their loss:)
> >

I understand that you can apply a rule on life and death that says player a's  group is alive if either player b accepts it is alive or player b can kill it if he moves first once both players have passed. And at least this means stones in seki don't get removed from the board from a player who can argue his case.

I'm not sure it's all that simple though. Please forgive the notation below, which I've used to get round the proportional spacing you get with some characters like # and *.
a and b represent the two players. e represents empty points.

Assuming Japanese rules for now, but I'm sure it's possible to set up examples with other rule sets.

aebbaeeee
eabbaeeee
bbebaeeee
bbbaaeeee
aaaaaeeee
eeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeee

In the local position, there should be no points in this.

However, using this approach, if I've understooded it correctly, b would get one point within the seki, because the programs wouldn't explicitly understand it as a seki, but instead as 2 live groups - one surrounding no points and the other surrounding one point.

And what about triple ko etc.

Paul


> > I do not trust bots (let alone pairs of bots) to handle genuine disputes
> > correctly.  I do trust myself to handle them correctly.
> >
> > I do not think anyone will try to add dispute-negotiation code to their
> > bot.  But if anyone is daft enough to do this, I shall insist that they
> > keep it switched off for any event that I am organising.
> >
> 
> For informal events it's fine to have a human supervisor to be the
> judge of unclear situations. The computer-Go community is still such
> that I expect this to go well for quite a bit longer, provided no
> large sums of money are involved.
> 
> For events that really matter it won't be that easy. Fortunately
> disputes can be resolved very easily, especially by computers. Any
> stone on the board after some number of consecutive passes can be
> considered alive. I think any other dispute-resolving system is bound
> to encounter unexpected problems, so you might just as well keep it as
> simple as possible.
> 
> Computers don't mind this tedious process, so I don't see it as a
> problem to require this. And the implementation is relatively easy. By
> that I mean if a program is competing for some top-prize, it will only
> be a very small percentage of the total development time that needs to
> be assigned to this end-phase.
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/