Re: [computer-go] Protocol B

["Peter McKenzie" <peter_mckenzie@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reply-To: computer-go <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: computer-go <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Protocol B
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:32:57 -0400
>
> I also have given this further thought.   I'm now slightly in favor of
> actually coming to an agreement on which stones are dead using the same 
> basic
> protocol you are specifying here.
I gave it a little extra thought too and came to the same conclusion.  My 
reasoning is simply that KGS needs this information to do its end of game 
scoring, and we should be doing everything we can (within reason) to work in 
with the way KGS works.  After all, it is wms who ultimately decides to 
implement (or not) the server side of the protocol.

On the other point you raised, I personally prefer to have an explicit 
resolve-disagreement-genmove (i.e. KGS-genmove_cleanup) command rather than 
rely on the program to infer it.  I think this would make the protocol 
easier for developers to use/debug with no significant downside.

Btw, contrary some comments I made a while back, I think that supporting 
protocol B wouldn't be any harder than supporting protocol A.  At least that 
is the case with my program.

cheers,
Peter

> The reason?   Just an extra nicety for marking the board at the end of the
> game.    Although the winner/loser result is by far the most important,  it
> is probably very useful "for the record" to understand exactly how the game
> was scored,  perhaps for games database research.    When a game has been
> finished,  it's a special convenience for any observer to see how the board
> was actually marked and it takes the pressure off of automated software to 
> do
> this.   As an example, how would Nicks program mark the final position if
> there was no reporting of dead stones?
>
> Also, it would make life easier for reporting game results in general,
> because people usually care about the actual area score and it's usually
> recorded in databases.
>
> It's not a big deal to me,  it's more important to have a protocol but I 
> can't
> help feel that if we adopted this protocol,  we might regret not having the
> stone information.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 27 July 2005 5:15 pm, David G Doshay wrote:
> > Upon just a little more reflection, I think that this protocol only
> > needs
> > to be used if the disagreement on the score amounts to a disagreement
> > about the winner.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
> >
> > On 27, Jul 2005, at 1:22 PM, David G Doshay wrote:
> > > (pass - pass)
> > > ?score?
> > > if agree
> > > 	no problem, game over
> > > if disagree
> > > 	resolve-disagreement-genmove
> > > 	if reply is pass
> > > 		resolve-disagreement-genmove
> > > 		if reply is pass
> > > 			game over, everyone alive
> > > 		if reply is not pass
> > > 			continue game with genmove
> > > 	if reply is not pass
> > > 		continue game with genmove
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
_________________________________________________________________
Find the coolest online games @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming

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