For computer purposes, this is the problem: Territorial scoring is more human-convenient, can be done without filling the dame or removing dead stones.
But it all depends on knowing which groups are live, which dead, which in seki. If there's a disagreement, it needs to be settled by resuming the game (assuming there isn't some superko problem depending on choice of rule set.) But knowing how that would work depends on being seeing the situation and the needed plays at a human level of accuracy. There's no reason in principle a computer program can't be accurate in scoring, but generally they aren't; it's hard enough to program something good enough to teach human beginners, and the scoring is a roughly equally difficult problem on top of that! Area scoring... If it's on the board, it's alive. A program might need to make lots of tedious moves removing dead stones, but what's tedium to a program? If a program doesn't remove some dead stones, it loses points, but the score itself is defined whenever both players pass. If we aren't going to explicitly code in a lot of go knowledge, area scoring is much easier. But once a program learns to play a successful area-based play, it wouldn't be playing the same game as Japanese & most Western players. For the territorial game, at some point you'd need to bring in either knowledgable humans or a complex territorial scoring/estimation program to settle things. Forrest Curo ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using AIS WebMail. http://www.americanis.net/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
