Re: [computer-go] Protocol B

[David G Doshay <ddoshay@xxxxxxx>]

On 28, Jul 2005, at 8:49 AM, John Tromp wrote:

> 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?
Thanks, John, for saying concisely what I have been trying to say, 
although
I used far more words.

I want the end-game protocol to be as human as is possible, and I want
it not to penalize what most people see as polite behavior and not to
reward (but to allow) what people see as rude or stupid behavior.

Cheers,
David

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