Re: [computer-go] Third KGS tournament: game-end protocol

[David G Doshay <ddoshay@xxxxxxx>]

I think John's simple idea is far too simple, and is in fact wrong. 
People
do not play that way so why should bots. To me it is no different than a
change in the rules. I really do not believe it is in the interest of 
computer
Go to require that all dead stones be removed. It leads to end game
play like that of botnoid, and a check of the comments near the end of
the SlugGo botnoid game show that while it can be temporarily funny,
even that gets old fast.

But a request to continue playing to clear up a dispute seems far too
general to me. Continue playing where? If the bot already passed it
saw no reasonable place to move. I think the request to continue
playing because there is a disagreement over the life/death status
of one or more groups must contain the information of the group or
groups in question. In this way the bot can be told where additional
resolution is needed.

This is the way people do it when there is an end-game disagreement,
and I think it is the only sensible thing to do for the programs.


Cheers,
David


On 9, Jun 2005, at 10:27 AM, Don Dailey wrote:

> >  How about:
> >  1. When B, W both pass, all blocks are assumed alive and we are done.
> >
> >  simple is beautiful:)
> Is it beautiful enough that you finish your games that way?
>
> Personally, I like John's simple but elegant solution, but it's kind
> of ugly for impatient human onlookers and especially for humans who
> play bots.
>
> When I put my player out on the server for games against humans, I
> want to accomodate them as much as I can.  I don't want to impose too
> much on their time to finish a game that even my bot knows is over.
>
> When I figure out how to make my bot pass earlier, it will be a
> beautiful thing to me.  :-)
>
>
> - Don
>
>   Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 17:50:27 +0200
>    From: John Tromp <John.Tromp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>    Chris Fant wrote:
>
> > Too much logic in the server.
> >
> > Since everyone else is taking a stab at this, here is mine:
> >
> > 1. When B, W both pass, request final_status_list
> > 2. If the results are same, we are done
> > 3. If not, start requesting gen_move_cleanup (if it is not
> > implemented, assume a pass move)
> > 4. After two more passes, all blocks are assumed alive.
>    How about:
>    1. When B, W both pass, all blocks are assumed alive and we are 
> done.
>
>    simple is beautiful:)
>
>    -john
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/