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

[David G Doshay <ddoshay@xxxxxxx>]

On 22, Jul 2005, at 8:58 PM, drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

ddoshay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 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!
I was trying to avoid going back to the arguments we had earlier, but
here we are. When two people disagree over the status of stones at the
end of a game they discuss which stones are disputed. Then the players
determine the life or death of those specific stones. This is what I had
suggested earlier. My objection is to a protocol whereby if there is any
disagreement then each side is "strongly encouraged" to play until
*all* dead stones are removed, because after two more passes *every*
stone on the board will be considered alive.

> 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 see the details of the suggested protocol as quite different from the 
way
I have always played Go. I have taught hundreds of people to play Go,
and in the first few games this virtually always occurs because new 
players
need to learn what living and dead groups look like. I know full well 
what
stones are alive and which are dead, but they do not. So they say "why
aren't these alive?" and I say "finish the shape so they have 2 eyes." 
So
they make a move. In most cases the stones are still quite dead, so I 
pass
again and tell them the stones are still dead and to keep trying. 
Usually
after a few of their moves I will have to play a single stone to assure 
that
the stones in question stay dead. If they pass at after one of my 
passes they
do not get to claim all the stones on the board are alive. If they say 
"would
you please play first so that I can see what you mean" I will, 
explaining that
if this were not a teaching game I would not be required to play.

The difference here is that, unlike the proposed protocol, when I pass
in the middle of a senseless sequence, they do not have the option of
quickly passing so that all their stones are declared alive.

Otherwise dead stones do not become alive because of 2 passes, or in
the case of the proposed protocol 4 passes. Stones on the board that
clearly have only one eye do not become alive. Stones in atari do not
become alive. Lonely stones behind enemy lines do not become alive.
Intelligent people learn to see that they have no chance of developing
two eyes and know that their status has not changed.

The suggested protocol is not the same protocol used by humans. I
still think that one of the best things about Go is that the game stops
when there is nothing more to be gained ... not when every stone on
the board that can be removed is removed by playing it out.

> 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.
"Something like it" may be fine. As suggested, I think it is not.

David

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