[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, David G Doshay wrote:


  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.

Will a linear row of stones at the edge of the board with one
liberty at each end be considered alive? Well, they should
if it is a seki, but not if the surrounding stones are unconditionally
alive. How about if they only have one liberty?

This protocol is downright silly. I just do not see the point in
making the bots fill all liberties down to the last 2. It is ugly.
where does the protocol say you have to fill down to 2 libs??
the protocol assumes that either bots can score properly (games end after 2 passes) or cannot (so there's no point in asking the bot a second/third/nth time about status, we already lost all faith in the bot when first disagreement happened...). now, since it is assumed that one of the bots cannot score, the bots are asked to remove everything they wish to be considered dead - because there's no other way to determine it (once we believe one of the bots cannot score properly). that does _not_ mean fill all libs...

and lets face it - 95% of the time if there's a disagreement it will mean a bug in one of the bots that will make it score wrongly most positions. that was the case in all of the disputes at kgs tournys so far i belive. once there's a dispute you can assume that there will not be an agreement _ever_ between the bots in question... that's the big strength of the protocol - it finds a way to score (correctly) each game, even when one bot just won't believe his opponent's 5 eye group is alive

What I see is that without a change in the rules that forces
programs to play the end-game like idiots, there will always
be special situation at which a human is required to settle
a dispute. It happens in human tournaments, why should
it never happen in a computer tournament? TD's exist to
set pairings and resolve disputes.
i _much_ prefer having the bots that cannot see what is dead (bots playing like idiots i would say) play like idiots, and be able to have round-robin tournaments every time, than forcing a human to be there all the time, resulting in _4_ round tournaments, with 1 round being a bye... this great big computer tournament once every 2 months and i get to play just 3 games because we wanted the bots that cannot score prove it each game in 10 iterations instead of 1... what's downright silly again??

David


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