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

["Eric Boesch" <ericboesch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "David Fotland" <fotland@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 
> nothingabout it.
> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:07:55 -0700
> The problem is that there is a difference between knowing that status of a
> group, and correctly playing out a sequence to take stones off the board.
As one of the GnuGo team (Paul?  Gunnar?) said a while ago, and I repeated.  
I do think people have been too reluctant to admit their selfish motivations 
in this discussion.  A poll of whose programs can actually handle 
Tromp-Taylor would, I think, be more interesting than doubtful arguments 
that there is something inherently absurd about Tromp-Taylor computer 
tournaments.

I don't think anyone disputes that in a computer tournament using any of the 
rules (Chinese, AGA, NZ) that have all-stones-on-the-board-live as a last 
resort, it would also often end up as the first resort, just like 
Tromp-Taylor.  Will this add dozens of moves to a typical game?  Yes.  Will 
it add hundreds, or give players a "strong incentive" to play unchallenging 
and theoretically useless stones?  No.  (As for playing stones that are 
challenging but still theoretically useless, there's nothing wrong with 
that.)  Programs that can't play by Tromp-Taylor rules won't enter 
Tromp-Taylor tournaments, so that trick won't work, unless it's a time 
gambit, but time gambits are already possible.  If a program that can't 
capture dead stones does enter such a tournament, then the program will 
probably be doomed by dead stones that appear naturally during the game 
anyway, so its opponent can still win without cheap tricks.

The key protection is the same one as always:  whether programmers' intents 
are commercial or not, they value their or their programs' reputations, and 
repeatedly attempting very cheap, unsporting wins and mostly failing anyhow 
wouldn't help in that regard.  Some programs, especially ones written from 
an area-rules point of view, may plonk down dead stones as an unintended 
consequence of their programming, but that's about it.  It's not profitable 
under any ruleset to plonk down a stone that will just get captured again, 
and while area versus territory scoring can make a difference in the 
theoretical value of a move, the specific dispute resolution protocol does 
not -- not unless the program's working theory is that its opponent doesn't 
know how to finish the game, but I repeat that there haven't been a rash of 
programs designed to play cheap ugly tricks.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

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