Re: [computer-go] Protocol B

[John Tromp <John.Tromp@xxxxxx>]

Eric Boesch wrote:

> Yes, you would.  You're free to set about capturing all your opponent's 
> dead stones, but if he wants a hundred or more agreement phases, then 
> that's what you get, because reasonable precautions won't stop it.
What kind of program would pass, and then claim an incorrect score, and
then play a stone in the opponent territory? And keep on repeating that?
I cannot imagine a sensibly designed program behaving like that.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say that there is such a program.
Let's also say that there are a few well-behaved programs that can resolve
one disagreement at a time. And finally, it is reasonable to assume there are
quite a few programs that keep playing stones in opponent territory before ever
passing.

What's the effect of protocol A versus B in a tournament?

Well, in any match involving the third class of program, you'll
have lots of silly moves, territories reduced to 1 point eyes, and then
forced agreement. Protocol choice doesn't matter.

In matches between class 2 (well-behaved) programs, protocol A will very
occasionally force two programs to play it out with silly moves, while
protocol B will always give the nicest possible result.

And finally, in a match between the first program and any other, there will
be lots of silly moves and about as many passes and disagreements,
when using protocol B.
And with protocol A, there might be lots of silly moves too, but few
passes and disagreements.

My view is that with all the unavoidable silliness already present,
one shouldn't try to avoid extra passes and disagreements for a
seemingly malicious program, at the cost of sometimes making
well-behaved programs act silly too.

regards,
-John

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