On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 16:59 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Alain Baeckeroot > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Le 28/03/2010 à 01:19, Petr Baudis a écrit : > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> I have yet another query about kgs-genmove_cleanup - I think its > >> behavior now is rather user-unfriendly and also a bit confusing. > >> > >> The genmove cleanup command is defined "do not pass until there are no > >> dead groups on the board". > > > > This is done in gnugo with the "capture_all_dead".There are some pitfalls, > > but it is not that hard to implement, and it is clean, no possibility > > of mistakes on scoring after this. > > > > I think conforming to the request of the server is better than modifying it > > to afford an half-baked solution, and i bet wms will tell you to fix your > > program :-) > > > Ok, but why then doesn't the same apply to the human player? Looking > at the game Petr mentioned at the (2nd) end the human player was again > allowed to mark groups dead *without* explicitly capturing them! > > I had always assumed that in the cleanup phase the rules are changed > so that finally all remaining stones will be assumed to be alive. > However, apparently the human player is allowed to play under a > different set of rules, which enables him to cheat.
The difference is that humans can talk with each other to resolve differences. Computers can't. So they must follow a stricter set of rules. Alain has it right. :) I don't see what will go wrong if you change your program to implement the cleanup command correctly. The original email game a log of what happened in a game that ended up wrongly scored, but admits that the program hadn't followed the cleanup protocol fully. If it did, then the game would have been correctly scored. So the problems look to me to be in the program, not in the protocol.
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
