>> Note that after tournament we can check "what would be the score" if >> there would be no truncation. > > You can check afterwards, but the programs should be adapting their > behaviour to the rules, so they will play for a safe +50 rather than a > risky +75.
This is a very good point. It may have the opposite of the desired effect, meaning it may encourage bots to go with a dynamic komi approach, rather than the more revolutionary (and therefore more interesting) min-max approach. As for convention, there are two established similar systems that I know of: 1. BankNeki (used by gamblers, mainly in Korea) http://senseis.xmp.net/?BangNeki Here the cut off is 91 points. 2. Hahn, as used on Little Golem http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/games/gamedetail.jsp?gtid=go19&page=rules Here the cut off is 41 points. Notice that both use a step system, rather than the actual points. (E.g. in both cases a win of 1 point is worth as much as a win of 10 points.) At first glance that seems to spoil the whole point; we want to motivate our bots to quibble over the last point. But the real reason for these rules, for humans at least, is to encourage more life/death fights. Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://dcook.org/blogs.html (My blogs and articles) _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
