[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [computer-go] Super Ko on KGS ignores player to move
On 8/14/05, drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am interested too.
That's nice to hear :-)
> The misconception that most of us have is that Go is a single game.
> In fact, it is a class of games with similar rules. The Go community (in
> general) has no real desire to fix this (and probably doesn't consider it
> And obviously, the Computer Go community has no desire to change, fix or
> improve this situation, even for their own use.
I don't agree with that. I think most programmers here agree that
logical rules are a good thing. However, this does not necessarily
mean that Tromp/Taylor is the ultimate solution. I think it's more a
matter of having different objectives.
One possible objective is to have a close agreement with tradional
rules. Among other things, traditional rules do not use superko.
Superko is a modern invention with questionable side effects. To me it
is surprising that western programmers are so fond of superko whereas
nearly all their other games (such as chess or checkers) actually
assign draw to repeated positions (which is in much closer agreement
with traditional Go rules than any superko rule, regardless of it
being positional, situational, or natural situational.)
When I organise a tournament I have yet another objective. Then I want
my rules to be as flexible as possible, so as to allow all moves that
are legal under any of the major rule sets.
I would really hate it if two programs could not play a game due to
small mistakes/differences in the exact implementation of some obscure
rules. Consequently, I would not enforce superko, although programs
would be perfectly free to use it internally as long as they would
accept all input from other programs that might play by different
> It almost amuses me that we can't even come to agreement on what the actual
> rule IS, let alone what it should be.
> When I first got into this, from a newby standpoint, I was completely
> confused by so many rulesets. I came real close to not getting into this at
> all until I happened upon a web site that published the TROMP/TAYLOR set of
> rules. It was like a breath of fresh air. I believe at the top of the
> page is said something like "The logical rules" or something similar.
> Wow! Suddenly it made so much sense. At the time I thought this will become
> the standard because it was so logical.
> What a disappointment to find that the computer GO world isn't logical.
I like Japanese rules ;-)
computer-go mailing list