Thomas Nelson wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Don Dailey wrote: > >> If we don't like the rules, we can talk about changing them in order to >> get behavior that fits our sensibilities better. But we have been >> over this ground many times before. It seems like the only reasonable >> way to properly score games is to play them out - and hence the use of >> tromp taylor rules. In order to help the situation I made suicide >> illegal on CGOS. >> >> - Don > > This raises an interesting (to me) theoretical question: is there a > ruleset that allows games to end in a more reasonable time without > changing general play? There is no such rule-set that I know of. Some people claim Japanese scoring ends the games earlier but that still doesn't prevent players from playing out the game needlessly - it only penalizes them for doing so.
CGOS uses Chinese scoring with play-outs so that we can get fully automated scoring with no chance of errors. - Don > I've tried teaching many beginners to play go, usually on a small > board. I prefer a "hands-off" style, just explaining the rules and > letting them play until they want to pass. But this always leads to > games lasting two or three times as long as they need to, since the > person playing their first game has no idea when to stop and keeps > playing dead stones. If try to stop them and say "that stone will day > as soon as you place it", they have to just take my word for it, or we > keep playing out. Really, when two players of reasonable skill level > play, they continue until the winner, or at least the score, is clear, > then stop. This is somewhat like the "end the game when it becomes > statically sloveable" idea. I wonder if it would be possible to have > some referee type bot that could stop the game when it was certain of > the outcome. I could even imagine an alternate go ruleset where there > was no passing at all, but the game ended when the fate of each point > on the board was certain. Of course, implementing those rules would > require a fairly strong go playing agent, and it's quite possible > lower-skilled agents would disagree with its assessment! > > -Tom > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
