To be honest, it seems very ugly to me but it seems to be what the majority like.
Apparently KGS handles it this way, the program just has to magically know what the compensation is. But that's true of any handicap system, the program has to have the correct understanding. I think we had this discussion before, but there appears to be no concise way to state the rules with the myriads of variations they entail. - Don On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 01:57 +0100, John Tromp wrote: > > > On 12/28/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just to be precise: KGS does option 2 if you select chinese > rules, and > > it also does option 1 when you select AGA rules. > > And to be more precise, here is how it might work: > > Handicap > -------- > 0 - komi is 7.5 and either player plays black. > 1 - komi is 0.5 and weaker player plays black. > 2 - komi is 0.5, weaker player gets black, white gets > 2 points. > 3 - komi is 0.5 , weaker player gets black, white > gets 3 points. > > At 2 handicap and beyond, the net effect is as if komi was > increased by > the number of stones handicap (but it won't be implemented > that way.) > > Is this how everyone else understands it? > > That makes little sense to me. If you want to give white extra points > at the end > of the game, then put it in the komi. That's what it's for! > So above, for 2hcap, komi will be 2.5, and for 3hcap, it will be > 3.5... > Why introduce 2 different komi's that need to be added? > > -John > > > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
