I still haven't seen an exactly specified ruleset for this game. Goncalo made some assumptions earlier, which were not yet confirmed. Also I would strongly recommend to not have any clearup-methods allowed, but all positions have to be cleared up by "hand" and all stones on the board in the end are considered alive.
Oh, and for the theorists: Assumptions: - You have a group with a single 3 point eye. - defender moves first. a) it has "more than enough" outside liberties. b) it has no outside liberties and you use A) p=0.20 B) p=0.19 C) p=0.18 What is the ideal strategy for both players in all the possible positions? And considering those strategies, what is the likelyhood of the group surviving? It is obvious, that if either of both players hits the centre, the position is won for him. Also if the defender accidentally hits one end and reduces it to a 2 point eye, he has lost. The difference between a) and b) is only the situation where the attacker accidentally filled both ends of the eye. In a) playing in the centre would be suicide, and given enough time the defender will obviously win that situation. In b) you have a race for the centre. If you assume A) the strategy looks quite simple. In the original position both sides would throw at an end, hoping for it to land in the centre instead. If it lands on the end for the defender, he would have just killed his group (unfortunately), if it lands there for the attacker, the game would go on and we have a race. But what happens with B) and C)? Now the situation at the original position isn't as trivial anymore. Aboves strategy is suddenly worse now. No matter how you throw, it is more likely to hit an end than the centre. Could you even create a situation where it is ideal for the defender to pass and hope for the attacker to miss, before the defender plays again? 2016-04-10 22:55 GMT+02:00 "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de>: > Hello, > >> There is no way in GTP to distinguish intentional from unintentional >> passes, so I suppose the simplest way is to perform things manually. > > Manually would mean. In each situation the followiong has to happen: > (i) The program to move proposes a move x or a PASS. > (ii) In case of a move x a die is rolled to decide to which place y on the > board > this move goes. y is returned to the program and to the opposing program. > In case of an unintended pass this information has to be returned to both > programs. > (iii) In case of an intended PASS tis is transmitted to the other program. > > So: the programs for this manual mode need to have the possibility > to enter move, unintended passes, and intended passes. Of course also > takeback of moves should be possible to deal with operator errors. > >> Maybe it is an informal tournament and time controls don't really matter. > > There should be some time limit like 30 seconds or 1 minute per move (for > the process that leads to proposal x or PASS) - and the operators should give > their word of honor that they have implemented this. > > By the way: All programs should run on (more or less) identical hardware. > > >> Also, do these remote participations come at a fee? :-) > > Of course: 50 Euro when a programmer participates "only" in Frisbee Go > simulation. > And 25 Euro only, when Frisbee Go simulation is his second or third or ... > game in > this Olympiad. > > Ingo. > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
