[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [computer-go] Third KGS tournament: game-end protocol
Hi Don,
In message <200506071849.j57InlhM007346@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Don Dailey
<drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Hi Nick,
I have been persuaded by posters to this list that I should eventually
require bots playing in KGS computer Go tournaments to support the
game-end protocol.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. This should not be a
requirement.
Yes, I have misunderstood something. I thought it was you who argued,
very persuasively, that it ought to be a requirement.
According the rules of Go, a player can pass whenever he wants to.
kgs-genmove_cleanup is just "genmove" with a request attached to it.
The request is, "please try to capture your opponents dead stones."
It is up to the program whether it wants to honor this request, because
it is not illegal to pass.
Therefore the kgs-genmove_protocol command is a request at best, not
an enforcable demand (according to the rules of GO anyway.)
That's why this whole business of having a human step in to clean up
the results is so unatural and ugly (in my opinion.)
But if the demand is not enforced, a human will have to step in and
clean up.
So why not just let the programs simply play by the rules? Why add
more procedure to the end of the game protocol and make it
complicated?
I am lost here. If we don't add more procedure to the end of the game,
what do you think happens after both players have passed and they
disagree about the status of a group?
One huge advantage of Chinese rules is that there should never be an
argument at the end about whether a group is dead or not, it is simply
played out. In fact, William Shubert set up the protocol to let
computers play the game the way the chinese rules expect. This is not
a new idea or some elaborate scheme, it is part of basic chinese play.
But the way things were on Sunday, it _isn't_ played out. I thought you
were arguing for things to be changed so that it does get played out.
And it doesn't require any program to do anything different unless
they want to. It is legal to pass any time you want to in any
ruleset. Of course it might be advantageous to clean up dead stones,
but it should not be "forced", even artifically after the game is
over.
What's the worst thing that could happen? A program will think it's
winning but fail to defend it's claim and lose the game. But it's
not like the program didn't have a choice. During the actual game,
the program is expected to defend itself, why is it suddenly ok
not to defend itself when there is disagreement?
So here is what you could easily have:
1. William Shuberts kgs-genmove_cleanup protocol
2. A programmers choice whether to implement the protocol or not.
3. A programmers choice HOW to implement it if he does implement it.
4. A server that can easily score all games without human intervention.
Ok, I am still lost. On Sunday, most of the programs in the Formal
division got involved in arguments that went "These stones are dead" "No
they are alive" "Dead" "Alive" "Dead" "Alive" "Dead" "Alive" ....
Were all these programs implementing the protocol?
Were some of them implementing it?
If they weren't implementing it, do you still believe that their
programmers could easily be induced to implement it?
What decision should I have made, when the group was in fact
unsettled?
Even if your program accepts the "kgs-genmove_cleanup" it is up to the
program what it will do with the information (the knowledge that there
is a disagreement) and this can't be enforced by the rules of GO so it
can't properly be a requirement.
But a good program will want accept this optional command and clear off
the opponents dead groups when it realizes the opponent is unaware that
his group is dead, otherwise it risks losing some points.
But what if it doesn't?
Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/