On Jan 2, 2008 5:54 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Erik van der Werf wrote: > > I'd propose something simpler: > > > > No time is deducted for pass. > > > > With this rule your program will only loose time when it absolutely > > has to respond to the opponents move. In most games the winning > > program can simply play until it has a sufficient number of > > unconditionally alive stones on the board and then pass forever > > without ever risking a loss on time. > > > This is not manageable and is also subject to manipulation. The > server could wait forever to see if a move might be pass. The only > reasonable way to implement this is to allow a liberal time margin for a > pass move. For instance if your bot passes, up to 5 seconds is > "forgiven."
Yes, it's probably a good idea to set some kind of upper limit. > I'm somewhat opposed to this idea. The decision to pass is still a > "considered decision" and I don't see why pass should be treated > differently. Normally, for rules using area-counting, pass is at best a worthless move. Your rules shouldn't encourage pass-fights. > Better would be some kind of victory declaration. The program claims > victory - which means that it agrees that every move from now on (for > itself) is a pass move. It would be the counterpart to resignation - > with the provision that you give up all rights to defend yourself if you > are wrong. Won positions may still have forcing moves for the opponent (e.g., atari-connect, etc.). I don't see a need for a separate victory declaration. If pass (and resign) are good enough for humans why would bots need more? Erik _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
