[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [computer-go] Super Ko on KGS ignores player to move
Personally, I don't like PSK as set in the Tromp/Taylor rules either. In my
personal opinion, and it's just that I admit, it detracts slightly from the
elegance of TT rules because it subtracts an element (color to move) from
what a position really is.
If given an arbitrary Go board configuration to play, would you care which
color you are assigned? Of course you would! There is an advantage to
having one over the other given any particular configuation. The same
configuration with WHITE to move is a different "position" than the identical
configuration with BLACK to move.
Tromp/Taylor tries to simplify by introducing the concept of board
configuration, which is an addition. When you play a game, you never make
2 moves in a row (unless the opponent passes), because you understand that
color to move is part of the "position." With PSK there has been added a
new concept to the game which did not need to exist and detracts slightly
from the elegance of the rules.
I understand of course that this call be interpreted differently. I know the
Tromp/Taylor designers think this is actually a simplification and they are
smarter than I am.
But TT is elegant, this only detracts slightly in my opinion. I don't
believe it really makes much of a difference. If I had it my way (and I
don't insist on this) I would use Tromp/Taylor with only that slight change
to make it more correct.
On Monday 15 August 2005 5:21 am, Erik van der Werf wrote:
> 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 broken.)
> > 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
computer-go mailing list