[computer-go] Computer Go Game End Protocol

[Ben Shoemaker <planetb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Everyone,

My two cents: (Disclaimer--computer-go enthusiast, no program of my own)

I think everyone has made some valuable points in the discussion already,
but let me summarize what I think the goals of the protocol are:

1. Simplicity - Easy to implement, Easy to use.
2. Completeness - As much as possible, the protocol should handle all
situations.
3. Correctness - The protocol should always enable correct results.
4. Autonomy - Ideally, no intervention is required.

In thinking about Don's point that it should always be okay to pass, and
considering how games are played and scored by novice humans when no expert
is around to assist, it seems to me that human observers might be bringing
an extra layer of complexity to the problem.

Consider the following example:
Two novice humans sit down to play a game of go.
They agree upon a rule set, komi, handicap, scoring, and commence play.
When they see no useful moves left, they pass.
If both pass, they assume the game is over and calculate score.
If they both agree, the result is considered correct.
If they disagree, they either explain how the rules support the result they
claim, or they resume play to demonstrate their claim.
This continues until they agree upon a result.

In this example, the result is considered correct if it does not break the
rules and is agreed upon by both players.  In a tournament, the agreement
of both players may be subject to a referee, or superceded by the ruling of
a referee, but the players cannot contribute to this outside judgment.  

What I see as important is that the outcome of the game reflects the skill
level of the players and their application of the rules.  They stop the
game when they both agree it has been decided (within the constraints of
the ruleset under which they are playing) based on their understanding and
application of the rules.  The fact that most humans do not "play out"
games to the point that computers can concretely apply rules and obtain an
certain outcome of win or loss should not be a constraint of the protocol. 


All games should be played out until both sides agree upon the state of the
game.  As Don has pointed out, the computer is _always_ trying to dispute a
loss and play moves which illustrate a win from the current position.  When
the opponent, with better ability, prevents this from happening, the
computer exhausts all its potential moves until it concedes the win.

The way I see it, for a game to be complete, the two players have to agree
to one of two things (or both):
1. The final status of every stone on the board.
2. Who won the game.

In the case of a tournament, disputes arise only if the two players can't
agree on either of those.  Play should be resumed until an agreement can be
made.  In rare cases, players will reach an impasse because they both
assume that correct play is to pass.  At that point, the referee should be
able to decide the game.

Even if two players of extremely poor ability are completely insane in
their assessment of the status of each stone on the board, if they agree on
who won the game, there should be no dispute.  If the ruleset does not
agree with their determination, the referee can overrule the result.

In practical protocol terms, I guess this would mean adding a request for
"game result" in addition to "final status list" in order to determine if
both players agree on the current state of the game.

I know this places more responsibility on the part of the players, but if
you don't know the status of the stones on the board and you don't know who
won but you think the game is over, maybe you're not really "playing the
game."

Ciao,
Ben Shoemaker.


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/