I agree with you. Weston's post convinced me that the program should know in advance what the handicap is to be and thus sending consecutive genmove commands is not really correct technically speaking.
I don't like implied compensation, but apparently it is popular and KGS does it. However, CGOS won't be doing it. I am really torn about this, but in the end I don't want to implement something I consider slightly broken just because another server does it. I think currently this falls under the category that you need to tell your program (via a command line parameter or config file) what the rules of compensation are. The rules for CGOS will be that komi by itself tells you everything you need to know about compensation. - Don On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 14:27 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote: > using gen_move to place handicap stones seems unreasonable to me when > there is a command intended for that purpose. The point of GTP is to > make it easy to implement the protocol. Anything that either breaks > programs that are written to the specification (as in using gen_move > instead of free_place_handicap) or makes GTP more complicated works. > "Implicit" handicaps are rediculous. Send it as the komi. The > following steps will always make it clear to any bot that implements > GTP correctly what they should do: _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
