On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 16:32 +0100, nando wrote:
> On 12/28/06, Urban Hafner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (...)
> > >> Should we:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Give white N-1 stones at end of game. (where N = handicap)
> > >> 2. Give white N stones at end of game. (N = handicap)
> > >> 3. Give white N stones except handicap 1 case.
> > >> 4. Not worry about giving white anything but the appropriate
> > >> handicap stones.
> > >>
> > > I vote for 2 because that is what KGS does, and that is how I have
> > > implemented handicap in my program.
> >
> > I'd vote for 2, too. Because that's the way (apparently) KGS does it
> > so it seems like a good idea not to have two different ways to handle
> > things out there.
>
> Just to be precise: KGS does option 2 if you select chinese rules, and
> it also does option 1 when you select AGA rules.
And to be more precise, here is how it might work:
Handicap
--------
0 - komi is 7.5 and either player plays black.
1 - komi is 0.5 and weaker player plays black.
2 - komi is 0.5, weaker player gets black, white gets 2 points.
3 - komi is 0.5, weaker player gets black, white gets 3 points.
At 2 handicap and beyond, the net effect is as if komi was increased by
the number of stones handicap (but it won't be implemented that way.)
Is this how everyone else understands it?
- Don
> -- nando
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
