Re: [computer-go] Protocol B

[John Tromp <John.Tromp@xxxxxx>]

Eric Boesch wrote:
> Protocol B looks a lot like Chinese agreement to me, but I think that 
> makes a bad choice for computer go.  The reason is this scenario, which 
> I consider likely:
> The endless attempts at agreement turn pairs of moves (white passes, 
> black places a stone) into four moves plus an agreement phase.  If 
> you're going to have dozens of agreement phases then you have to be 
> careful about time controls for those phases too.  I think that is so 
> ugly that it's a non-starter.  I'd prefer almost anything else, from 
To me, any ugliness is in the stubborn white program,
not in the agreement protocol.

Moreover, the ugliness you see here pales in comparison to
that of a far more likely kind of stubborn program, that only passes
when there's no eye-filling moves. They just keep on sacrificing stones
in the opponent territories until it is reduced to 1 point eyes.
It can make games last thousands of moves. And this protocol doesn't
affect those games at all.

Human observers may not even notice if two programs spend a fraction
of a second between every two real moves to play some extra passes and 
diagreement. The extra passes will not appear in the final game record either.

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