Re: [computer-go] Protocol B

[John Tromp <John.Tromp@xxxxxx>]

Eric Boesch wrote:
> John says that if Protocol B gets ugly when one side plays Tromp-Taylor, 
> it's that player's fault.  The point isn't that the programmer 
> implements Tromp-Taylor, ignoring the agreement phase, to be rude -- the 
> programmer is just handling the endgame as simply as he can, by solving 
> all disputes over the board.  Unlike playing on as long as possible, 
> that is not *inherently* ugly.
Many people have expressed a preference for always play it out rules.
That is certainly the simplest possible protocol. But other people resist
this idea because it would make programs look stupid compared to humans.

So there is more or less consensus that programs should be given a chance
to agree on the score as early as possible.
Protocol B is the simplest possible incarnation of this, giving the programs
as many chances as possible to come to an agreement.

I consider this to be quite human like. If two human players decide to
resume play to decide the status of some disputed group, then once the
status of that group is clear, they will try to come to another agreement.

So if two smart programs both react to an initial dispute by resolving the
most likely disputed group, doesn't it look similarly stupid if they are now
forced to play out the rest completely?

I guess the question comes down to:
Do we want the protocol to cater to the most desirable program behaviour,
or to the most lazy/exploitative possible behaviour?

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