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

[Robin Kramer <kodream@xxxxxxxxx>]

I know it is standard convention to call stones on the board dead. 
But there is a distinction between being on the board considered as
captured and dead.

I would use the terminology captured versus dead.  If you listen to
people at Go groups most people refer to stones on the board as dead
and stones taken off the board as captured.  Which makes no sense to
me, unless you are playing Chinese, where the dead stones are returned
to the opponents dish(reincarnation)....

They are different and it would be nice if people would refer to
stones on the board as captured, and stones removed from the board as
dead.

-Robin

On 7/26/05, drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Tuesday 26 July 2005 12:16 am, David G Doshay wrote:
> 
> > My problem is that after the kgs-genmove-cleanup the first pass can
> > carry a heavy penalty: all of your opponent's stones are alive if they
> > pass. So, after one disagreement about status, it is as if the rules
> > have changed.
> 
> This isn't anything like a rule change.    A dead stone is only a concept
> based on what will happen in the future IF the attacker plays correctly.
> 
> If the attacker doesn't play correctly,  the stone will not die.   But of
> course you would prefer to award the win anyway without finding out, no
> matter how weak the players are.
> 
> 
> > This not only lets, but it encourages a bot with a large number of
> > dead stones behind enemy lines to respond to one pass with a
> > pass, disagree about status, and then have the chance that the
> > otherwise winning bot will pass again. And because there are
> > points to be made this way, it will happen.
> 
> Of course it will happen, if the second player is stupid enough to stop
> defending himself.    I really don't see the point.   Whether you have the
> protocol or not,  a player can play out the game to the bitter end in the
> hopes that the opponent will screw up, perhaps filling in his own eyes.
> 
> The protocol makes it possible for COOPERATING programs to pass early.    You
> can never FORCE a non-cooperating program to pass early, so it's really no
> use constructing scenario's where a game will get played out to the end
> needlessly due to some flaw in the protocol.
> 
> 
>  > I think it is nice to have the required entry standard into these
>  > tournaments
>  > as low as possible, it allows more people to enter, and to enter
>  > earlier in
>  > the development of their programs.
> 
> But only to a point.   The greater good dictates that we maintain some
> reasonable expectations too.   GTP itself raises the standard and yet it has
> probably prevented some entrants from participating.   But it does enable us
> to have these interesting tournaments.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/