I was going to avoid more postings ... but it seems that any beauty
of omission that might be achieved would be offset by the rudeness
of not answering specifically posed questions.
Answers embedded below.
Cheers,
David
On 4, Jan 2007, at 4:29 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is
supposed
to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not
require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly
passes should be awarded a point for his skill.
This is the heart of my argument. I still consider it a feature
when my
program passes 100+ times in the endgame.
Is it also a feature when a program cannot play out bent-4, because it
"knows" that it is dead, but not why? Which program has more
skill, the
one that understands how to play it out, or the one that doesn't?
It is difficult to discern the difference.
But if you look at the SlugGo MoGo game in the slow KGS tournament,
you will see that SlugGo avoided playing any time possible, and even
avoided simple captures in a way that led to MoGo filling space in a
way that avoided SlugGo having to play the extra capture stones. You
can say that SlugGo understands nothing about endgame counting, or
you can say that it shows signs of doing something well. Your choice.
Again, almost all of those moves were pure GNU Go moves, so it
speaks more to the quality of their endgame counting than anything
I wrote for SlugGo.
Japanese rules, in their pursuit of "efficiency" and "beauty of
omission", have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
This point I do not understand. However, I do understand how I can
find that "efficiency" and "beauty of omission" lovely while others do
not. I am a physicist, and very many of the equations I learned to
understand are written explicitly in a max efficiency / min energy
form. If the universe really works that way then it is lovely that this
game captures it.
You can no
longer force an opponent to demonstrate his skill on the board;
instead
you must agree off the board what is alive or dead.
I believe that this point was covered best by
On 4, Jan 2007, at 2:28 PM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
Please stop this confusion.
Chinese scoring != Chinese rules
Japanese scoring != Japanese rules
I only wish to address how we should do our scoring, not the entire
set of formal Japanese rules. Specifically, how we should score the
result of a game when one bot passes and the other keeps playing.
That is where this thread really got started, Lukaz's suggestion that
a pass cost one point, because that will lead to the same result
with Chinese or Japanese COUNTING.
As Archivist of the AGA I have several volumes of Japanese rules. It
is astounding how long those documents are. The only solace I get
is that they are written in Japanese, and I don't read Japanese, so I
do not have to worry about all of the details.
And please, for once address this argument: When a player is *losing*
under Japanese rules, how does it hurt him to make "unreasonable"
invasions? Your argument is no argument at all. Japanese rules
provide
no benefit in this department.
The only thing that happens is that they loose by more points to the
extent that their opponent does not answer move for move. If your
argument is that there is nothing beyond loosing, then yes, there is
no clear motivation to avoid invasions that might bring the win back.
I do not see a problem with that. To try is fine, perhaps even showing
a tenacious spirit. That was my evaluation of the previously mentioned
KGS tournament game between botnoid and SlugGo. SlugGo was going
to win by 368.5 points, but botnoid kept playing and SlugGo kept
passing, but eventually botnoid made things too complicated for
SlugGo and lost by only 180 or so points. I had no problem with that.
It was interesting and pointed out where SlugGo had evaluation
problems. Even if SlugGo had lost the game, it would have been the
same: a clear indication of a problem in counting in a liberty race.
Winning may be more fun than loosing, but I usually learn more from
loosing. In this case I had the lucky circumstance of both winning and
learning, although there was the loss of 180 or so points.
Cheers,
David
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
