From: David G Doshay <ddoshay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: computer-go <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: computer-go <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [computer-go] I know we disagree,but I choose to do nothing
about it.
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:48:33 -0700
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.
I understand your objection here and agree that in an ideal world the
protocol would be a little more sophistocated and 'human like'. For
example, there was a suggestion for a protocol which lets the programs have
multiple attempts at agreeing which stones are dead - effectively allowing
multiple iterations of the currently suggested protocol.