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

[drd@xxxxxxx]

William,

Your post made something clear to me that I wasn't articulating in my other 
posts on the subject:

Although Nick Wedd is willing to fix-up results at the end of the game,  that 
only addresses tournaments that he runs.    And that's not my biggest concern 
because I know that those tournaments will get run correctly and Nick is 
doing a good job in that regard.

But having some protocol to allow computers to resolve disputes without 
needing a human is an important step for Computer Go in general,  whether 
it's used in any particular tournament or not.   

And that's probably why I'm such a champion of the idea.   Your post reminded 
me that I don't really care that much about whether Nick does it manually or 
not, as long as the protocol (or any protocol for this) surfaces and becomes 
widely accepted.

Don



On Monday 25 July 2005 7:58 pm, William M. Shubert wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:05 -0700, 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.
>
> (Sorry for this coming so late, I'm catching up on my email now). H'mm,
> my way of looking at it is a little bit different.
>
> Let's say two programs disagree on the game situation. The standard GTP
> protocol has no way for them to figure out which is right, and which is
> wrong. So rather that favoring a protocol over understanding the game,
> what I'm doing is providing a protocol by which programs can determine
> which one of them had the correct understanding of the game situation,
> and which was wrong. The program that has the correct understanding of
> the game situation will be the one that benefits, as long as it can use
> the protocol...but on the other hand, isn't that the case for GTP (or
> any other protocol) in general? After all, you may have the best go
> playing program in the world, but if you don't implement the GTP
> protocol, then all your game understanding won't help you a bit in a
> GTP-based tournament. Same thing here; your program may be able to
> perfectly analyze living/dead groups at the end of the game, but if you
> don't have a way of showing why they are living and dead, then you won't
> win.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/