Re: [computer-go] Protocol B

[Erik van der Werf <erikvanderwerf@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/29/05, Mark Boon <tesujisoftware@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/29/05, Erik van der Werf <erikvanderwerf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 7/29/05, john tromp <John.Tromp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I' aware of that. I showed this position (also in my thesis) because
> > it is an extreme consequence of my rules.
> >
> > The question is, if I can prove that I can capture some group, do I
> > then have to continue play after that capture (which I'm not willing
> > to do), or am I allowed to go back to the position at the start of the
> > resolution phase and score the position exactly there where both
> > programs decided to pass first.
> >
> > I don't think there is an easy answer and my rules are certainly not
> > perfect. However until someone comes up with a more accurate
> > programmable and practical approximation of the Chinese rules I stick
> > with Migos rules.
> >
> 
> I think the proof of the cake is in the eating. Meaning, the proof of
> capturing a group is in taking it off the board.

Sure, I never argued with that. The question is what happens after one
has shown that a group can be captured. Which position should be
scored?

My point of view is that the position to be scored is the position
where both players consecutively passed the first time. If you argue
that this was not a final position then I reply that one of the
players has made a blunder, by passing too early, and should simply
accept whatever comes out of the scoring procedure.


> There are known situations however
> where removing stones in atari off of the board is disadvantageous.

I know hane-seki. Can you show me an example involving unconditionally
alive groups with small eyes? If the size of the eyespace (which could
allow succesful invasion after forced capture) is your problem we
could simply restrict server rulings to unconditional territory with a
maximum of 7 intersections per region (optionally expanded by things
such as provably correct miai strategies).


> Maybe it's a matter of point of view

As always when it comes to rule details :-)

> , but I'd say in Erik's example
> the # stones are alive if it's not in O's interest to actually remove
> them.

That's what the Japanese 89 rules suggested as well, but like I said,
then you can get points for the prisoners (and implicitly for the
passes). For Chinese rules, which the original author proposed, we
don't have that luxury.

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