Re: [computer-go] Protocol B

[drd@xxxxxxx]

Hi Ben,

I liked your posting and agree with many of the points.   I am actually in 
favor of having computers play it out to the  end also, where after 2 
passes have the board scored "AS IS",  no if's ands or buts.   This is the 
most elegant (elegance based on simplicity.)

The only hitch, is that this doesn't promote human/computer server play.  
That's the only reason I reluctant to recommend it with a wholeheartedly 
myself.

If Nick or someone else said that is how his computer vs computer tournaments 
will be run,  I wouldn't protest in the least.   But it would still leave 
open the issue of human vs computer and cheating.

It's not theoretical because KGS allows rated games between humans and 
computers.   It seems nicer to me to have a unified protocol.  

But, falling short of that,  here is yet another idea that is workable, if not 
particularly attractive:

   a) computer/computer to be played by Tromp/Taylor rules.
   
   b) Human/computer games scored by the human player BUT, the computer is 
given an opportunity to protest by  being informed of the "assigned result."   
There could be a formal procedure for making the protest, or the engine 
author could be responsible for deciding how to proceed.   At least the 
engine could report to the engine author that it believes it has been 
cheated.    The engine author could determine if this is the case and proceed 
accordingly.

- Don


On Thursday 28 July 2005 11:34 am, Ben Shoemaker wrote:
> Okay, two more cents:
>
> I still think part of the problem is that we are approaching the situation
> with guidelines developed from typical human play.  The protocol (and
> possibly even the rules) needs to be designed to accomodate the simplest
> application of the rules.  Ideally they should work for every case from the
> worst possible players up through the best possible players.  Currently, in
> most rulesets, the game is finished after two consecutive passes.  Does
> this mean that the game is scoreable?  In typical human play, yes.  For all
> possible play, certainly not.
>
> In my opinion, the game should be played out to "the bitter end" by
> computer players.  By "the bitter end" I mean until all dead stones are
> removed (seki situations would be a an exception.)   Why?  Otherwise, you
> are taking the gameplay of both players and substituting a) human judgement
> or b) perfect play or c) gnugo scoring.  Instead of letting the players
> decide the contest between themselves, you are letting them initiate the
> position, and then assigning a given solution to the go problem they have
> created.
>
> Why do humans stop when they do?  Because we have learned to read the
> shorthand of "dead stones on the board" and find it boring to play it out
> to "the bitter end" and have developed methods of bringing each other into
> agreement about the shorthand.
>
> For computer players, I don't think the game should be considered over
> until both players agree on the outcome of the game, or that there are no
> more moves left to either player to help clarify that outcome (in which
> case outside help is needed to judge the outcome).
>
> As David states in his protocol, play should resume after two passes and a
> disagreement, unless neither player feels they can clarify the game with
> further play.
>
> I think the initial agreement question after two passes should be "Who
> won?" rather "What is the score?" as this is simpler and bridges both area
> and territory scoring styles.
>
> (pass - pass)
> ?_Who won_?
> if agree
> 	no problem, game over (report score for posterity, if available)
> if disagree
> 	resolve-disagreement-genmove
> 	if reply is pass
> 		resolve-disagreement-genmove
> 		if reply is pass
> 			game over, third party judgement needed
> 		if reply is not pass
> 			continue game with genmove
> 	if reply is not pass
> 		continue game with genmove
>
> Asking the programs to agree on dead stones (which is what humans do) is
> trickier because what is dead varies by level of analysis, which is the
> whole point of playing in the first place.
>
> Does the protocol enable a program to "cheat" and force another program to
> lose on time?  I don't think so.  If the cheating program is playing
> worthless moves, the refutations should be obvious and not require a
> significant amount of time to play.
>
> Will humans consider some of these moves ugly?  Probably, but until the
> computers see them as ugly, we should allow them to play each other until
> "the bitter end."
>
> Ciao,
> Ben Shoemaker.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/