>>> On frisbee Go itself I used the following definition: >>> 1. An intended play must be legal -- no playing on top of a stone hoping >>> it 'falls' to the neighbor positions. >> >> Accepted. > > What's the point of this rule?
The point of the rule is ease of implementation for computer programs, to promote adoption. A program that already plays Go will probably keep tabs on legal plays, not every board intersection, so this rule reduces the scope of things that need to be changed. I also had another restriction in my program that I forgot to mention: 6. Both players must be using the same probability p. Again for ease of implementation. In testing I've also noted that a komi of 7.0 or 7.5 is no longer reasonable in Frisbee Go... Cheers, Gonçalo On 14/04/2016 14:41, John Tromp wrote: >>> On frisbee Go itself I used the following definition: >>> 1. An intended play must be legal -- no playing on top of a stone hoping >>> it 'falls' to the neighbor positions. >> >> Accepted. > > What's the point of this rule? > > I feel it is an unnecessary restriction, similar to the no-suicide rule, > and would vote against it. > > As I said before, it suffices to have positive probability of a legal move. > > In real life frisbee go, a player doesn't need to state his intended throwing > target, so if it ends up landing in a legal place, it's accepted, regardless > of whether it was aimed there, or at a possibly occupied neighbour. > > regards, > -John _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
