Re: [computer-go] I know we disagree,but I choose to do nothing about it.

[drd@xxxxxxx]

David,

> This proposal promotes an "optional" protocol over correct understanding of 
the game situation ....
  

The proposal is for automated game scoring and it's not this dramatic.  

The year is 2005 and 2 computers still cannot even play a game of Go without 
getting a human involved in the scoring process.  Even with Chinese scoring.     

That's what this is about.   It was  ok for the early pioneers of Computer Go 
but we should be way past that by now.    I know that in general computer go 
is very conservative and leery of change,  but this should be a no-brainer in 
my opinion.


> ...  and if the program does correctly understand the board but does not 
participate in the protocol it looses.

The solution is to participate in the protocol.  

If a program completely understands the board, and is winning dramatically and 
it runs out of time,  it loses.    The solution is to honor the protocol, 
which is to play the game within the alloted time.     You make it sound so 
sinister that a program might lose for simply not following basic protocols.

I will also remind you that it's not mandatory for computers to follow the 
time protocol.   You will probably lose the game if you don't,  but it's up 
to the program to obey it, or "choose to do nothing about it."

> And because any bot that chooses not to score correctly the first time
> can force this protocol upon the opponent, it is not much different
> than a change in the rules of Go. Or maybe I don't understand either.

I would say you don't understand.

If 2 players sit down to play a game for fun, and they have an honest 
disagreement over dead stones,  what do they do?   They play it out!    

And yet you suggest this VERY SAME protocol in computer Go is a PERVERSION of 
the rules of the game?   Again, I think you are being overly dramatic.

I think we will find that sooner or later, this or something like it will be 
standard.   It's a logical step and in my opinon it's just insane that 
something like this didn't happen a long time ago.   

- Don


On Friday 22 July 2005 9:05 pm, David G Doshay wrote:
> On 22, Jul 2005, at 4:18 PM, Nick Wedd wrote:
> > I thought, I still think, that it is you who advocates mandating it.
> > You don't propose mandating it by requiring programs to respond in
> > some way to the "kgs-genmove_cleanup" command;  you advocate
> > effectively mandating it by changing the rules of the tournaments so
> > that programs that don't respond appropriately to it will lose most of
> > their games as a consequence.
> >
> > And I am not happy about this.  Or maybe I still don't understand.
>
> I feel exactly the same way. This proposal promotes an "optional"
> protocol over correct understanding of the game situation, and if the
> program does correctly understand the board but does not participate in
> the protocol it looses. Not much of an option from my perspective, even
> if I ignore my other problems with the suggested protocol.
>
> And because any bot that chooses not to score correctly the first time
> can force this protocol upon the opponent, it is not much different
> than a change in the rules of Go. Or maybe I don't understand either.
>
> While I regret that manual resolution is more work for any tournament
> organizer, I think that Nick has done a wonderful job because he has
> always asked both programmers if they accept his analysis before
> pushing "the big button." Given the state of Computer Go and the
> complexity of the game, I can see no sensible choice other than human
> intervention when these disagreements happen between programs.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/