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

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Nick,

I would like to respectfully make these observation as an outsider coming
into computer Go.  Let's call it constructive criticism.

I have noticed there is a "computer go culture" that is embarassingly
conservative about change that might be positive but that is
different.  One of those tradition bound attitudes seems to be almost
an encouragement of programs that can't quite manage a real game or follow
simple rules.    This was probably very useful a few years ago, but it
just doesn't make sense in 2005 in my opinion.

William Shuberts resolution protocol is really simple,  simple enough to
be called elegant.

 1. After 2 passes, the computers either agree or disagree about dead
    stone status.

 2. If they agree, GREAT, we are done.

 3. If they disagree, each program is informed via
    kgs-genmove_cleanup.

 4. The play continues until both programs pass.

 5. At this point, the protocol is slightly broken, but it should be
    that the game is over PERIOD after the kgs-genmove_cleanup and 2
    passes.

If the (supposedly) winning program fails to capture the opponents
dead stones, then who's problem is that?  Apparently it's everyone
elses problem except for the program itself.  Nothing elegant about
that.

I have just recently added code to deal with seki, somewhat
imperfectly but it works most of the time.  Before this, my program
would occasionally lose won games because it would fill in those
points and get captured.

Wouldn't it be a lot "cleaner" just to give the program the win
anyway?  The fact that my program could not quite finish the game
properly shouldn't be allowed to "taint" what I cosider the "correct"
results.  I shouldn't have to be incovienced to the point of fixing
the seki code when we could simply adjusticate these positions before
it happens in order to return what really should have been the correct
results.

Ok, I'm being very sarcastic to make a point, forgive me.  No harm or
disrespect intended.  But I feel it's no different with dead stone
resolution, it's nothing like rocket science.  I believe computer go
programmers are smart people and can handle this properly.  It's a
simple thing and it should be considered as essential as knowing any
of the other rules.   


- Don





   X-Original-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:11:47 +0100
   From: Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   In message <427F5DA7.2050208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Tromp <John.Tromp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
   writes
   >Paul Tabor wrote:
   >> I've noticed some of the stronger programs can't read out things like seki
   >> all the time. Which is reasonable, because if they were perfect at reading
   >> they would be 9p+ and this bulletin board wouldn't be needed any more. But
   >> this is common enough to make human intervention in scoring necessary - you
   >> can't play out a seki!
   >
   >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 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.

   Nick
   -- 
   Nick Wedd    nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   _______________________________________________
   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/