Cool idea Dons! I think taking away the ordinary ko rule in this way would
have too strong a distorting effect on the game. The player who was behind
could win all ko fights, and eventually there would be a ko fight that
neither could afford to lose. Too many games would be drawn. It would end
up like chess!
But removing the superko rule and allowing agreed draws would be an improvement
I think. I suppose there is the danger that an obnoxious player could continue
the loop until his opponent got bored, but your plan of having a fixed maximum
number of moves would sort this out.
In fact it's such a good idea that I think I may have suggested here a long
time
ago.
At 17:23 23/10/2006, you wrote:
One solution to all of this is to HAVE NO KO RULE!
Then all the nonsense goes away. It then comes down to each player
having his fate in his own hands. If you want to win, you will avoid
cycles, but you are not arbitrarily told what a cycle is or what version
of some cycle rule is considered illegal. Indeed, there are no illegal
moves in the KO sense.
This also greatly simplifies the rules. The KO rule is often the most
confusing to beginners with all it's variations and is difficult to
state concisely. Imagine being able to do away with it entirely!
This gives 3 possible results for all possible games:
1. Black wins
2. White wins
3. Game never completes.
I would argue that after an infinite number of moves, a game be
considered a draw. Neither side wanted to fight for it or neither side
could attain a win - so a draw is the logical conclusion to such a game.
This all has great beauty. A game is never decided by a KO side-effect.
The responsibility of winning - or even of making progress is put upon
the players themselves. From a programmers prospective there are no
GHI issues (unless the programmer creates it for practical reasons.)
But now we have one itty bitty practical inconvenience. How to you
conduct tournaments and matches where games can last forever?
Since GO currently has arbitrary KO rules for practical convenience, why
not introduce another arbitrary but practical rule to handle this
situation? After all, we just got rid of the nuisance KO rule?
The rule we could introduce (which can be concisely stated) is to set a
move number limit on the game. If a game goes to move N, it is over
and a draw is declared. (Or we could award the game to WHITE if we want
to make draws impossible.)
My guess is that in practical play human players will notice the cycles,
and either come to a draw agreement or break the cycle.
When programs play, this may not always happen. I argue that the
arbitrary game limit is no more arbitrary than rules of KO which we
impose for practical reasons only.
We could make N be 2 * boardsize. On 9x9 a game is over after 162
plays. It would be 722 for 19x19.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
