Jason House wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2008 10:21 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Robert Jasiek wrote: > > Don Dailey wrote: > > > you can never solve the problem of a > >> malicious opponent who wants to prolong the game needlessly. > > > > I solved that many years ago: Constant game end rule. > > http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/endrules.html > > > > The question is rather whether one wants such a rule. (I do not like > > it because it is artificial.) > > > Interesting web site - I enjoyed reading it and it seems well > thought out. > > > It looked to be lots of classification and description of pre-existing > rules. I missed (or possibly tuned out prior to reading) the part > about solving how to end the game in an elegant way. > > Which section should I read? He already specified the section to read.
> > BTW - The KGS game end protocol requires both bots to pass to initiate > scoring. Both sides then give a list of dead stones. If they agree, > the game is over. If there's any disagreement, the bots must finish > the game like on CGOS (all remaining stones are alive). Yes, the KGS rules gives only 1 chance to agree. At one point KGS allowed this to happen repeatedly, but it cause some bots to infinite loop on the server when they disagreed. So I think it's better than nothing, but imperfect. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
