RE: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Good players don't grab at everything. That's a losing strategy. Once one player is ahead, the player ahead plays safely to secure a high confidence win, and the player behind creates complications to try for an upset. The proverb says "when you are ahead, don't pick fights". David > > But I am told that good players don't think like that, they just grab > at everything. > > - Don > > > > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:06 -0700, David Fotland wrote: > > I was speaking of how people count, not computers. Chinese players > > count by taking all the stones off the board and putting them in > piles of ten. > > > > I've done (and seen) point by point counting on a real board, and it > > is really hard to get a correct result. You have to count at least > > twice to verify, and usually 3 or 4 times to get two counts that are > > the same. So no one does it this way. > > > > Clearly Chinese counting is easier for computers, but Japanese > > counting seems easier to most people. > > > > David > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:56 AM > > > To: computer-go > > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules > > > > > > David Fotland wrote: > > > > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is > > > preserved > > > > > > Japanese counting destroys the position by > > > - removal of dead stones > > > - filling in of (most) prisoners > > > - rearrangements of stones > > > - rearrangements of borders > > > - border stone colour changes > > > > > > After the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT > > > destroy the position: > > > - point by point counting > > > - point by point half counting > > > - some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling > > > > > > -- > > > robert jasiek > > > ___ > > > computer-go mailing list > > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > ___ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Don Dailey wrote: On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote: Dave Dyer wrote: Japanese: bad. I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation. The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter. Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the best rulesets for humans. It's all a matter of what you are used to. If there were no such thing as Japanese and it was suddenly introduced today, there would be an outrage. I know this is a little late, but I should clarify what I meant: I think that territory scoring is best for humans. And I think that if there were only area scoring, and suddenly territory scoring were introduced, there would be no outrage. However, Japanese rules are much more than simple territory scoring, and I am not defending or praising those "tortured details". Also, I think when teaching beginners Go, the "trust me, you lost here even though you cannot understand it" approach is a gigantic mistake no matter which ruleset you are using. Play it out, and show the beginner exactly why those disputed stones are dead (or alive). This is possible no matter what kind of scoring you use. If you're using territory scoring, you will get the exact same (relative) score unless one player passes multiple times, which shouldn't happen in a play-out with a beginner who doesn't understand what is going on. If the beginner does understand what's going on and just wants to know what's to prevent an obstinate player from insisting that an obviously-dead stone is alive, then a simple explanation of the virtual "confirmation" phase should suffice, and a manual "roll-back" to the original position should be trivial even over a physical Go board. And, as others have pointed out, "territory scoring" with pass stones is equivalent to area scoring, so this way you get the best of both worlds! ~ Ross ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 00:00 +0200, Basti Weidemyr wrote: > > If dame was filled, I see no reason why this would not be possible to > implement as a cleanup phase on go-servers, like the one used for new > zealand and chinese rules. Do you? It would be the human-adaption of > the play-it-out-then-restore-and-count-again, that David mentioned. What you have described are essentially the AGA rules, which David also mentioned. The thing is they are just the Chinese rules in disguise -- dame then becomes worth 1 point, as opposed to Japanese rules. AGA has the peculiar rule about pass stones, and that White must pass last. If you don't have the peculiar rules and try to keep the Japanese idea of dame being worth 0 points, then you get into trouble like pass fights and one-sided dame that should only be played in a dispute phase. I'm not aware of a single source that describes all these issues, but you can Google around for "pass fight" and "Ikeda rules". Sorry to brush you off on further details, but I'm not an authoritive source, though I have gleaned enough over the years to know that Japanese rules are trouble :) -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Basti Weidemyr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes In European tournaments, I have been told, when a group is claimed by one player to be a seki, and by the other player to be dead, the player who claims it is dead will receive one stone, as a prisoner, from his stubborn opponent foreach stone he plays in his own would-be- territory. I don't know what rule set is now applied in most European tournaments. France and the UK now use AGA rules (or something very similar). In these countries, what you describe will indeed happen. This is done as what I consider to be a bodge, to allow the Japanese counting method to produce the result appropriate for Chinese scoring. If Chinese rules are in use, prisoners are ignored, captured stones are just put back in the bowls, and both stones and territory are counted at the game end. This is a simpler, bodge-free, way of achieving the same effect. Nick If dame was filled, I see no reason why this would not be possible to implement as a cleanup phase on go-servers, like the one used for new zealand and chinese rules. Do you? It would be the human-adaption of the play-it-out-then-restore-and-count-again, that David mentioned. Best Basti Weidemyr PS: It is midnight and I am really not a rules expert, like some people here. Did I overlook something? On Sep 16, 2008, at 1:06 AM, Peter Drake wrote: I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different answers, so I thought I'd check here. Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed it (playing four stones inside your own territory, thus losing a net three points). If you try to pass as well, I stubbornly insist that the stone is alive, thus restarting the game. What prevents this sort of abuse? Is this one of those cases where the tournament director has to adjudicate? (This is not a problem under Chinese or AGA rules.) Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
In European tournaments, I have been told, when a group is claimed by one player to be a seki, and by the other player to be dead, the player who claims it is dead will receive one stone, as a prisoner, from his stubborn opponent foreach stone he plays in his own would-be- territory. If dame was filled, I see no reason why this would not be possible to implement as a cleanup phase on go-servers, like the one used for new zealand and chinese rules. Do you? It would be the human-adaption of the play-it-out-then-restore-and-count-again, that David mentioned. Best Basti Weidemyr PS: It is midnight and I am really not a rules expert, like some people here. Did I overlook something? On Sep 16, 2008, at 1:06 AM, Peter Drake wrote: I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different answers, so I thought I'd check here. Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed it (playing four stones inside your own territory, thus losing a net three points). If you try to pass as well, I stubbornly insist that the stone is alive, thus restarting the game. What prevents this sort of abuse? Is this one of those cases where the tournament director has to adjudicate? (This is not a problem under Chinese or AGA rules.) Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
It seems to be more efficient for humans to count territory instead of area during the game. I've heard that even chinese professionals save time by estimating the score during the game by counting territory japanese style and correcting for stones captured (you have to remember captures, which is not that hard even for amateur dan players). Then late in the endgame it will become clear if there will be an odd number of dame, allowing the player playing the first dame and the last dame a small gain compared to japanese scoring. Dave Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Don Dailey Verzonden: di 16-9-2008 19:47 Aan: computer-go Onderwerp: RE: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules I bet with practice and using Chinese scoring, you could very rapidly calculate the score without touching the board. In fact, if I were trying to become a dan level players I would think that in Chinese I would want to be able to quickly "sum" the board like this. In real close games I would want to know that winning some small group would either do the job, or not do the job and I should concentrate elsewhere. But I am told that good players don't think like that, they just grab at everything. - Don On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:06 -0700, David Fotland wrote: > I was speaking of how people count, not computers. Chinese players count by > taking all the stones off the board and putting them in piles of ten. > > I've done (and seen) point by point counting on a real board, and it is > really hard to get a correct result. You have to count at least twice to > verify, and usually 3 or 4 times to get two counts that are the same. So no > one does it this way. > > Clearly Chinese counting is easier for computers, but Japanese counting > seems easier to most people. > > David > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek > > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:56 AM > > To: computer-go > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules > > > > David Fotland wrote: > > > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is > > preserved > > > > Japanese counting destroys the position by > > - removal of dead stones > > - filling in of (most) prisoners > > - rearrangements of stones > > - rearrangements of borders > > - border stone colour changes > > > > After the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT destroy > > the position: > > - point by point counting > > - point by point half counting > > - some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling > > > > -- > > robert jasiek > > ___ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Nick Wedd wrote: > If there are too many to be counted as they lie in the lid, I would take this to mean that the opponent is entitled to tip them out and count them. In EGF / German tournaments (with open prisoners prescribed), I do it when necessary for my updated positional judgement. I do not recall an opponent that would have objected. Some of my opponents do it, too. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
David Fotland wrote: > Professional players can do this 100 moves from the end of the game and typically be within a point or 2 of the final score. Nice myth, but I doubt it. Rather very strongly it depends on the kind of position. In some kinds of early middle game positions (150 to 200 moves before the end), I can also make a +-3 points positional judgement (this does, OC, not mean I could read all the variations). In most kinds of middle game positions, it is much tougher though. When my time allows it in important tournament games, I count the result before the last pass to prevent cheating during the counting or the necessiety to reconfirm if the counting is performed faster than one can follow it visually. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes You also cannot score Japanese from just the board position unless you have a prisoner count of both sides. This state has to be carried either explicitly (by a bowl full of stones) or implicitly by a complete game record. So I suppose it's possible to have what appears to be 2 identical positions with the same side to move in a finished game and have 2 different results, a won for white and a won for black. What is to prevent someone from grabbing a few stones at the beginning of the game and sneaking them into the dish later? If I want to estimate my winning chances, am I allowed to empty out the bowls and count the stones? Or am I only allowed to estimate this by keen eyesight? Am I allowed to hide this part of the board state from my opponent? Am I required to keep a running tally in my head? I understand that some tournament rules require the players to keep their prisoners in clear view of the opponent. If there are too many to be counted as they lie in the lid, I would take this to mean that the opponent is entitled to tip them out and count them. Nick Even though I've been assured that even good players don't really know who is winning in close games (which I don't entirely believe), it seems to me that it should be possible to at least calculate where you stand by looking at the board and basing this on what you know for sure. - Don On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 18:56 +0200, Robert Jasiek wrote: David Fotland wrote: > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is preserved Japanese counting destroys the position by - removal of dead stones - filling in of (most) prisoners - rearrangements of stones - rearrangements of borders - border stone colour changes After the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT destroy the position: - point by point counting - point by point half counting - some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
I bet with practice and using Chinese scoring, you could very rapidly calculate the score without touching the board. In fact, if I were trying to become a dan level players I would think that in Chinese I would want to be able to quickly "sum" the board like this. In real close games I would want to know that winning some small group would either do the job, or not do the job and I should concentrate elsewhere. But I am told that good players don't think like that, they just grab at everything. - Don On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:06 -0700, David Fotland wrote: > I was speaking of how people count, not computers. Chinese players count by > taking all the stones off the board and putting them in piles of ten. > > I've done (and seen) point by point counting on a real board, and it is > really hard to get a correct result. You have to count at least twice to > verify, and usually 3 or 4 times to get two counts that are the same. So no > one does it this way. > > Clearly Chinese counting is easier for computers, but Japanese counting > seems easier to most people. > > David > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek > > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:56 AM > > To: computer-go > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules > > > > David Fotland wrote: > > > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is > > preserved > > > > Japanese counting destroys the position by > > - removal of dead stones > > - filling in of (most) prisoners > > - rearrangements of stones > > - rearrangements of borders > > - border stone colour changes > > > > After the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT destroy > > the position: > > - point by point counting > > - point by point half counting > > - some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling > > > > -- > > robert jasiek > > ___ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Knowing who is winning requires calculating the value of each endgame position and understanding the best order to play into them. Professional players can do this 100 moves from the end of the game and typically be within a point or 2 of the final score. I'm AGA 3 Dan, and I'm happy if I can get a count accurate to within 5 points. So if the game is a 1 or 2 point game all I can say is that it's really close and I don't know who is winning. In the middle game it is much harder, since it's difficult to give a point count to thickness. Often one player is ahead on secure territory, but the other has stronger groups and an attack. It's very hard to estimate how many points an attack will actually give. David > > Even though I've been assured that even good players don't really know > who is winning in close games (which I don't entirely believe), it > seems to me that it should be possible to at least calculate where you > stand by looking at the board and basing this on what you know for > sure. > > - Don > > > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 18:56 +0200, Robert Jasiek wrote: > > David Fotland wrote: > > > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is > > preserved > > > > Japanese counting destroys the position by > > - removal of dead stones > > - filling in of (most) prisoners > > - rearrangements of stones > > - rearrangements of borders > > - border stone colour changes > > > > After the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT > > destroy the position: > > - point by point counting > > - point by point half counting > > - some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling > > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
You also cannot score Japanese from just the board position unless you have a prisoner count of both sides. This state has to be carried either explicitly (by a bowl full of stones) or implicitly by a complete game record. So I suppose it's possible to have what appears to be 2 identical positions with the same side to move in a finished game and have 2 different results, a won for white and a won for black. What is to prevent someone from grabbing a few stones at the beginning of the game and sneaking them into the dish later? If I want to estimate my winning chances, am I allowed to empty out the bowls and count the stones? Or am I only allowed to estimate this by keen eyesight? Am I allowed to hide this part of the board state from my opponent? Am I required to keep a running tally in my head? Even though I've been assured that even good players don't really know who is winning in close games (which I don't entirely believe), it seems to me that it should be possible to at least calculate where you stand by looking at the board and basing this on what you know for sure. - Don On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 18:56 +0200, Robert Jasiek wrote: > David Fotland wrote: > > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is preserved > > Japanese counting destroys the position by > - removal of dead stones > - filling in of (most) prisoners > - rearrangements of stones > - rearrangements of borders > - border stone colour changes > > After the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT destroy > the position: > - point by point counting > - point by point half counting > - some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
I was speaking of how people count, not computers. Chinese players count by taking all the stones off the board and putting them in piles of ten. I've done (and seen) point by point counting on a real board, and it is really hard to get a correct result. You have to count at least twice to verify, and usually 3 or 4 times to get two counts that are the same. So no one does it this way. Clearly Chinese counting is easier for computers, but Japanese counting seems easier to most people. David > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Jasiek > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:56 AM > To: computer-go > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules > > David Fotland wrote: > > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is > preserved > > Japanese counting destroys the position by > - removal of dead stones > - filling in of (most) prisoners > - rearrangements of stones > - rearrangements of borders > - border stone colour changes > > After the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT destroy > the position: > - point by point counting > - point by point half counting > - some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling > > -- > robert jasiek > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:29 -0400, steve uurtamo wrote: > without vast captures of territory, someone > will either violate the superko rule or make an > illegal move before lots of time passes. It depends on how the bots play. What if you get two bots that each insist on playing in the opponent's territory? If each player has 50 points of territory, this could go on for quite awhile. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
David Fotland wrote: > Japanese rules' [...] the actual counting [...] The position is preserved Japanese counting destroys the position by - removal of dead stones - filling in of (most) prisoners - rearrangements of stones - rearrangements of borders - border stone colour changes After the removal of dead stones, these counting methods do NOT destroy the position: - point by point counting - point by point half counting - some algorithmic virtual counting like flood-filling -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
The formalized rules are the "tortured details" I referred to. I've played thousands of games of Go, and I've never even seen any of those versions of the rules. The Japanese rules I refer to are the informal procedures I use every time I play, both to estimate the score during the game, and at the end. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:18 PM, David Fotland wrote: If you fail to make it live, then we now agree on the status of the group, and we restore the position to what it was when we both passed, and score it. Ah, this is the key point I was failing to grasp. I didn't realize that the moves played in the "resumed" game are merely virtual. Your use of "resumed" here is confusing. Moves played in a "resumption" are real, they are part of the game. It is moves played in a "confirmation" that are virtual. Nick Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
without vast captures of territory, someone will either violate the superko rule or make an illegal move before lots of time passes. s. On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Jeff Nowakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote: >> It's a shame Fischer Timing is not available. A small Fischer >> increment of 1 or 2 seconds would do the job nicely. > > It doesn't solve the problem of two programs that don't pass. You can't > keep to a fixed schedule if you keep on allowing "just a few seconds > more" ad nauseum. > > -Jeff > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > In chess, there is some logic that all games end (at least in > principle) > with with repetition, stalemate, or checkmate. The 50 move rule is a > "practical substitute" for the repetition rule based on the assumption > that these games would end anyway with a repetition. Same with > insufficient mating material. This needs a little clarification I think. The 50 move rule is really more of a SHORTCUT, not a substitute. It basically avoids having to wait for a repetition which could take hundreds of moves. It can also conveniently cover the case where a player does not have the ability to win a technically won game. Of course this case also eventually reduces to a draw by repetition. - Don signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:01 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > > Disputes that beginners get into are another class of disputes that > > these rules cannot easily resolve without the beginner feeling as if > > they were being "handled."You pretty much have to rely on his good > > nature to eventually just accept the result without questioning it. At > > some point you say, "trust me, you really did lose here even though you > > cannot understand why." > > This is just really really bad. Not only will it annoy the hell out of the > beginner in question, the problems will not only occur with beginners but > every time someone starts to play the game in a matter that deviates a bit > from common practise. Like, let's say, a computer. > > Add in the factor that UCT bots like to play towards half point victories, > and you have a recipe for pain. > > > It's probably just as bad in chess. You have the arbitrary 50 move draw > > rule, castling, en-passant, and the insufficient material draw. For > > those who may not know, there is a class of positions that cannot be won > > no matter how stupid the opponent plays and these are draws and you have > > to know them. To more advanced players these are very simple to > > understand, but to the beginner they can be confusing. > > But the beginner could play out the game without complications. > > The rules can be perfectly implemented and are unambiguous. > > This is a huge difference to Japanese rules. Yes, I completely agree on this point. You can a set of rules which are not subject to interpretation or ambiguity and this is a win. > > > So you actually have a situation where you can have a won game, play it > > perfectly, but are forced to accept a draw anyway. > > If you have an endgame that isn't winnable due to the 50 move rule, it > isn't a won endgame. It's as simple as that. In order to get unambiguous clear rules, we have had to accept a compromise on the purity of the rules. You have the ridiculous situation where you can announce a forced checkmate, but due to a technicality of the rules you are not allowed to claim a win. > You should play towards an > endgame that is winnable by the rules. I really don't even see the analogy > here at all. I agree, there is no comparison to the wart that is Japanese scoring. So I'm stretching the analogy a bit. The point I should be making about the 50 move rule is that it is unsatisfying in the ideal sense. Yes, it's a good practical concession but really serves as an (imperfect) substitute for the repetition rule. It's a wart. In chess, there is some logic that all games end (at least in principle) with with repetition, stalemate, or checkmate. The 50 move rule is a "practical substitute" for the repetition rule based on the assumption that these games would end anyway with a repetition. Same with insufficient mating material. Now the insufficient mating material is not so much a wart in my mind because it's an unambiguous practical shortcut. It is impossible to win such a game ANYWAY. Even if you opponent WANTS to lose, he cannot (short of actually resigning.) But the 50 move rule clearly fits under the category of strict interpretations of laws that go outside the intent of the law. For example you might save a life by running a red light. The law against running a red light was designed to SAVE lives, not COST lives. (There are probably much better practical examples of blindly obeying laws to the detriment of the spirit of the law.) The actual intent of the 50 move rule is to prevent unreasonably long games due to the fact that some stubborn player refused to admit he cannot checkmate his opponent.The intent is NOT to penalize someone for achieving a won game.Of course you are correct, the rule makes it simple by defining some classes of wins as draws. - Don > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
I agree -- the AGA rules are quite clear. Note that the British Go Association has recently adopted the same rules. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:12 AM, David Fotland wrote: Finally, a plug for American rules: American rules are the same as chinese rules, but with Japanese style counting. People familiar with Japanese rules can use AGA rules immediately, but they have all the benefits of Chinese rules, in that anything can be played out to the end without changing the score. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:18 PM, David Fotland wrote: If you fail to make it live, then we now agree on the status of the group, and we restore the position to what it was when we both passed, and score it. Ah, this is the key point I was failing to grasp. I didn't realize that the moves played in the "resumed" game are merely virtual. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Some comments: First, I've seen tournament games between beginners where both agreed on the death of a group because it was "bent 4 in the corner" when in fact the shape was not bent-4 and the group was alive. It's very hard for observers not so say something when the game is scored incorrectly. Second, one of the reasons for Japanese rules' popularity is that the actual counting seems easier. The position is preserved so the count can be verified, and after prisoners are filled in there is not much to count. In Chinese rules you have to destroy the position and count all the stones too. Finally, a plug for American rules: American rules are the same as chinese rules, but with Japanese style counting. People familiar with Japanese rules can use AGA rules immediately, but they have all the benefits of Chinese rules, in that anything can be played out to the end without changing the score. David > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gian-Carlo Pascutto > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:02 AM > To: computer-go > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules > > > > Disputes that beginners get into are another class of disputes that > > these rules cannot easily resolve without the beginner feeling as if > > they were being "handled."You pretty much have to rely on his > good > > nature to eventually just accept the result without questioning it. > At > > some point you say, "trust me, you really did lose here even though > you > > cannot understand why." > > This is just really really bad. Not only will it annoy the hell out of > the > beginner in question, the problems will not only occur with beginners > but > every time someone starts to play the game in a matter that deviates a > bit > from common practise. Like, let's say, a computer. > > Add in the factor that UCT bots like to play towards half point > victories, > and you have a recipe for pain. > > > It's probably just as bad in chess. You have the arbitrary 50 move > draw > > rule, castling, en-passant, and the insufficient material draw. > For > > those who may not know, there is a class of positions that cannot be > won > > no matter how stupid the opponent plays and these are draws and you > have > > to know them. To more advanced players these are very simple to > > understand, but to the beginner they can be confusing. > > But the beginner could play out the game without complications. > > The rules can be perfectly implemented and are unambiguous. > > This is a huge difference to Japanese rules. > > > So you actually have a situation where you can have a won game, play > it > > perfectly, but are forced to accept a draw anyway. > > If you have an endgame that isn't winnable due to the 50 move rule, it > isn't a won endgame. It's as simple as that. You should play towards an > endgame that is winnable by the rules. I really don't even see the > analogy > here at all. > > -- > GCP > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes HBotSVN's processor details are empty, and there seems to be confusion about the end of the round 6 game. I hope the additional detail below is helpful. Processor: *One core of an "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5450 @ 1.66GHz" Thank you. Open Division, Round 6: round 5, I think *I noticed that KGS was non-responsive to me watching on my laptop while I watched my bot lose on time. It seems there was a nice blip in my network connection. Logs showed HouseBot was still doing reasonable time usage. In the game, I typed "???" as my bot didn't play. It wasn't until after the game was over that I saw my ??? get displayed in the game. *Since HBotSVN does not support "final_status_list dead", it does all cleanup prior to passing. It was just about done when the connection blip occurred. Ok, thank you for the explanation, I have corrected my report. Nick On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces of Go, the winners of the two divisions of Sunday's KGS bot tournament. My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/42/index.html I am sure it has as many errors as usual, and I look forward to receiving your corrections. I would also appreciate views on my proposal to change the time system used for these events, so that instead of say 18 minutes absolute time, they will use 18 minutes plus 20 stones/20 seconds Canadian overtime. I want to use something with a fairly sharp cutoff, so that the schedule will not be disrupted by overrunning games. However I want to avoid the situation where a program claims the status of the groups correctly but then loses on time in the clean-up phase. Nick -- Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
> Disputes that beginners get into are another class of disputes that > these rules cannot easily resolve without the beginner feeling as if > they were being "handled."You pretty much have to rely on his good > nature to eventually just accept the result without questioning it. At > some point you say, "trust me, you really did lose here even though you > cannot understand why." This is just really really bad. Not only will it annoy the hell out of the beginner in question, the problems will not only occur with beginners but every time someone starts to play the game in a matter that deviates a bit from common practise. Like, let's say, a computer. Add in the factor that UCT bots like to play towards half point victories, and you have a recipe for pain. > It's probably just as bad in chess. You have the arbitrary 50 move draw > rule, castling, en-passant, and the insufficient material draw. For > those who may not know, there is a class of positions that cannot be won > no matter how stupid the opponent plays and these are draws and you have > to know them. To more advanced players these are very simple to > understand, but to the beginner they can be confusing. But the beginner could play out the game without complications. The rules can be perfectly implemented and are unambiguous. This is a huge difference to Japanese rules. > So you actually have a situation where you can have a won game, play it > perfectly, but are forced to accept a draw anyway. If you have an endgame that isn't winnable due to the 50 move rule, it isn't a won endgame. It's as simple as that. You should play towards an endgame that is winnable by the rules. I really don't even see the analogy here at all. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hideki Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes Hi Nick, Thank you for origanizing the tounaments. However, the hardware I (FudoBot) used is wrong. It was running on a loosely coupled cluster of four PCs connected through a usual Gigabit Ethernet LAN. Each PC has one Intel Core2Quad processor running at 3GHz. So, 16 cores in total. Thanks - now corrected. Then you may ask why not strong :). It's just becaues, other than some known bugs, implementing my parallel MCTS took so many months that other parts are not improved since last year. Say, no progressive widening, no smart patterns, etc. BTW, where followings came from? FudoBot Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.6GHz That is what Project was running on. I had also accidentally omitted Project from the list of hardware, and included CrazyStone ... Nick Hideki Nick Wedd: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces of Go, the winners of the two divisions of Sunday's KGS bot tournament. My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/42/index.html I am sure it has as many errors as usual, and I look forward to receiving your corrections. I would also appreciate views on my proposal to change the time system used for these events, so that instead of say 18 minutes absolute time, they will use 18 minutes plus 20 stones/20 seconds Canadian overtime. I want to use something with a fairly sharp cutoff, so that the schedule will not be disrupted by overrunning games. However I want to avoid the situation where a program claims the status of the groups correctly but then loses on time in the clean-up phase. Nick -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
HBotSVN's processor details are empty, and there seems to be confusion about the end of the round 6 game. I hope the additional detail below is helpful. Processor: - One core of an "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5450 @ 1.66GHz" Open Division, Round 6: - I noticed that KGS was non-responsive to me watching on my laptop while I watched my bot lose on time. It seems there was a nice blip in my network connection. Logs showed HouseBot was still doing reasonable time usage. In the game, I typed "???" as my bot didn't play. It wasn't until after the game was over that I saw my ??? get displayed in the game. - Since HBotSVN does not support "final_status_list dead", it does all cleanup prior to passing. It was just about done when the connection blip occurred. On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces of Go, the winners of the two > divisions of Sunday's KGS bot tournament. > > My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/42/index.html > I am sure it has as many errors as usual, and I look forward to receiving > your corrections. > > I would also appreciate views on my proposal to change the time system used > for these events, so that instead of say 18 minutes absolute time, they will > use 18 minutes plus 20 stones/20 seconds Canadian overtime. I want to use > something with a fairly sharp cutoff, so that the schedule will not be > disrupted by overrunning games. However I want to avoid the situation where > a program claims the status of the groups correctly but then loses on time > in the clean-up phase. > > Nick > -- > Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
Hi Nick, Thank you for origanizing the tounaments. However, the hardware I (FudoBot) used is wrong. It was running on a loosely coupled cluster of four PCs connected through a usual Gigabit Ethernet LAN. Each PC has one Intel Core2Quad processor running at 3GHz. So, 16 cores in total. Then you may ask why not strong :). It's just becaues, other than some known bugs, implementing my parallel MCTS took so many months that other parts are not improved since last year. Say, no progressive widening, no smart patterns, etc. BTW, where followings came from? >FudoBot >Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.6GHz Hideki Nick Wedd: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces of Go, the winners of the two >divisions of Sunday's KGS bot tournament. > >My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/42/index.html >I am sure it has as many errors as usual, and I look forward to >receiving your corrections. > >I would also appreciate views on my proposal to change the time system >used for these events, so that instead of say 18 minutes absolute time, >they will use 18 minutes plus 20 stones/20 seconds Canadian overtime. I >want to use something with a fairly sharp cutoff, so that the schedule >will not be disrupted by overrunning games. However I want to avoid the >situation where a program claims the status of the groups correctly but >then loses on time in the clean-up phase. > >Nick -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:10 -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > It's a shame Fischer Timing is not available. A small Fischer > increment of 1 or 2 seconds would do the job nicely. It doesn't solve the problem of two programs that don't pass. You can't keep to a fixed schedule if you keep on allowing "just a few seconds more" ad nauseum. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
It's a shame Fischer Timing is not available. A small Fischer increment of 1 or 2 seconds would do the job nicely. - Don On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 14:21 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote: > Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces of Go, the winners of the two > divisions of Sunday's KGS bot tournament. > > My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/42/index.html > I am sure it has as many errors as usual, and I look forward to > receiving your corrections. > > I would also appreciate views on my proposal to change the time system > used for these events, so that instead of say 18 minutes absolute time, > they will use 18 minutes plus 20 stones/20 seconds Canadian overtime. I > want to use something with a fairly sharp cutoff, so that the schedule > will not be disrupted by overrunning games. However I want to avoid the > situation where a program claims the status of the groups correctly but > then loses on time in the clean-up phase. > > Nick ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 14:21 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote: > > I would also appreciate views on my proposal to change the time system > used for these events, so that instead of say 18 minutes absolute time, > they will use 18 minutes plus 20 stones/20 seconds Canadian overtime. What happens if you get two bots that don't pass? I think you'll have to manually stop the game. Given the current time systems on KGS, I think absolute time is the best way to keep to a fixed schedule. The bot author can reserve a few minutes for a cleanup-phase -- many reasonable approaches to allocating time have been discussed in the past. Alternative time proposal: Have the overtime use a fast Canadian time (like your 20/20), but limited to something like 5 minutes. This way you get the benefit of a fixed schedule and a short cleanup period. I know KGS doesn't support this, but I think it would be a great option for tournaments, both human and computer. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 07:57 -0400, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote: > > Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the > > best rulesets for humans. > > Ok, tired old topic, tired old response: Japanese rules aren't good for > beginners. They also aren't good at resolving disputes (genuine > disputes, not just somebody acting stubborn just because they can). Disputes that beginners get into are another class of disputes that these rules cannot easily resolve without the beginner feeling as if they were being "handled."You pretty much have to rely on his good nature to eventually just accept the result without questioning it. At some point you say, "trust me, you really did lose here even though you cannot understand why." The bent four thing is another wart on the Japanese rules. The rule is stated something like this: A group which is surrounded by enemy stones in the corner is dead IF the eyeshape CAN BE reduced to bent four in the corner. This rule isn't simple unless you are an advanced player. It would be glitchy enough if the rule specified an exact shape for the eye, but the rule is based on knowing that if CAN BE reduced to this specific shape. This to me seems to be a characteristic of the Japanese rule-set, you really have to know in advance what the result would be with proper play in various situations in order to score it properly. On the http://senseis.xmp.net/?BentFourInTheCornerIsDead page you see the following: The current rule is now that in the determination of life and death at the end of the game, after play has stopped, only a pass for a specific ko__ will allow that ko to be taken back. If White makes such a pass, Black wins the ko, anyway. I can see why Japanese rules are considered so beautiful. It requires a lawyer to interpret them and lends itself to lots of wonderful social interaction. It's probably just as bad in chess. You have the arbitrary 50 move draw rule, castling, en-passant, and the insufficient material draw. For those who may not know, there is a class of positions that cannot be won no matter how stupid the opponent plays and these are draws and you have to know them. To more advanced players these are very simple to understand, but to the beginner they can be confusing. For a while, the 50 move draw was modified (at least in some federations) to accommodate a few "special" endgames where you could win but it required more than 50 moves. So for some endings, you were allowed more than 50 moves in order to demonstrate that you could win the game. For others it remained 50 moves. Later, it was decided that this required a lot of specific knowledge to properly apply in practice and thus the 50 move rule was restored due to simplicity. So you actually have a situation where you can have a won game, play it perfectly, but are forced to accept a draw anyway. - Don > > -Jeff > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces!
Congratulations to Leela and to Many Faces of Go, the winners of the two divisions of Sunday's KGS bot tournament. My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/42/index.html I am sure it has as many errors as usual, and I look forward to receiving your corrections. I would also appreciate views on my proposal to change the time system used for these events, so that instead of say 18 minutes absolute time, they will use 18 minutes plus 20 stones/20 seconds Canadian overtime. I want to use something with a fairly sharp cutoff, so that the schedule will not be disrupted by overrunning games. However I want to avoid the situation where a program claims the status of the groups correctly but then loses on time in the clean-up phase. Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote: > Dave Dyer wrote: > >> Japanese: bad. > > > > I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules > > are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the > > last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct > > score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation. > > > > The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter. > > Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the > best rulesets for humans. It's all a matter of what you are used to. If there were no such thing as Japanese and it was suddenly introduced today, there would be an outrage. - Don > > ~ Ross > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 21:05 -0700, Ross Werner wrote: > Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the > best rulesets for humans. Ok, tired old topic, tired old response: Japanese rules aren't good for beginners. They also aren't good at resolving disputes (genuine disputes, not just somebody acting stubborn just because they can). -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
>> I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different answers, >> so I thought I'd check here. to get a different set of different answers. :) >> Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your >> territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed it (playing four >> stones inside your own territory, thus losing a net three points). If you >> try to pass as well, I stubbornly insist that the stone is alive, thus >> restarting the game. stones on the board aren't counted unless they're dead. your hopeless one stone has neither two eyes nor is a seki, so i can ignore it and we will remove it from my territory after the game is over. in fact, after you place it there, i will pass, unless you've actually caused me some danger by placing it there, in which case i will respond (and the net effect will be that we will each have placed a stone inside my territory, not affecting the outcome of the score so far). if, after we've both passed, you suggest that this clearly dead stone is in fact alive, and that all of its surrounded territory should be counted as yours, i'll point out that it doesn't surround any territory and isn't a seki, so is dead. the stones on the board that are alive dont count toward points in japanese rules, just the territory, so it matters not how many stones are on the board or if you've placed a stone inside my territory, simply that we agree on the life and death status of stones inside what we both agree *is* our territory. right? so imagine instead that you have three dead stones inside my territory and place a fourth, surrounding one point of territory, and i pass, and you place a fifth and create some intensely important ko or seki opportunity for yourself. well, then perhaps i shouldn't have passed. i was being greedy, or cocky, by taking those 3 free points, but after that, i should have been more careful. when i was first learning how to play, i would occasionally drop a stone into my opponent's territory thinking that it counted for something (that i could build life in the hopeless chasm of my opponent's territory). he'd pass. i'd drop another in. he'd pass again. basically, until he responded, i was making moves that didn't provide a real threat to him. it was only after a bit of gentle advice that i realized that i was both giving him free points and annoying the crap out of him. even an opponent who doesn't understand the concept of two eyes or seki could be persuaded according to the "official procedure", which i've never seen anyone need to use in practice. if the putative opponent actually doesn't understand two eyes or seki, playing out on a separate board might be a good way to educate them without ruining the stones-in-play and creating a situation that is well-nigh impossible to undo without convincing your opponent that you're doing something sneaky to the score. of course, you could bore them to tears by writing each move down in the on-the-board after-game sequence so that they could be undone, one at a time, after life or death had been established. superko and bent four in the corner actually do require someone explaining why this is a rule, same as explaining why ko is a rule. ko because it makes the game more fun. superko because of the same thing as ko only over a longer timeframe. bent four because it's a totally crappy situation that is hard to resolve otherwise. in the case of malicious intent, a much simpler option, which i have seen exercised, is for the stronger opponent to resign and watch or start a game with someone else. it's about having fun, after all. s. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Li Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes This case is simple. You needn't capture and remove the "dead" stone actually before the game ends. If you think it's alive, you have the right to "resume" to game after "double pass" to make it alive (e.g. make two eyes). But I have to say, there are two many arbitrary "judging" rules in Japanese rule system which prevents it becoming a friendly (no matter to a human or a computer) and scientific rule. In fact, in some special cases, you would see the _huge_ result difference by Chinese and Japanese rules. The list of arbitrary rulings was removed from the Japanese rules in 1989. Nick There are also some defects on Chinese (or similiar Inn) rule system - e.g. how to balance the black and while, super-go... Anyway, the first, coming, international match is a good start to raise a new uniform rule. 2008/9/16 Ross Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dave Dyer wrote: Japanese: bad. I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation. The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter. Agreed. Japanese may be bad for computers, but I think it's one of the best rulesets for humans. ~ Ross ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Disputes under Japanese rules
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes I've asked this question of a couple of people and got different answers, so I thought I'd check here. Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed it (playing four stones inside your own territory, thus losing a net three points). If you try to pass as well, I stubbornly insist that the stone is alive, thus restarting the game. Your stubborn insistence does not cause a restart of the game (a "resumption", article 9.3). It causes a confirmation phase (article 10.4), which is unwound after its result has been found. Nick What prevents this sort of abuse? Is this one of those cases where the tournament director has to adjudicate? (This is not a problem under Chinese or AGA rules.) Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Strongly agreed on "its is a social game not a mathematical abstraction". As well-known, there have been several contentious very important matches which may even change the direction of Japanese Go history. On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Magnus Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I would also like to add the following: > > The real answer to this question about how to end a game with japanese > rules is that it over a longer course of time it is solved through social > interaction. If someone refuses to score games correctly you simply never > play a game with that person again. Also if someone would do this in a club > setting everyone would soon know about it and the offender would have to > adapt or never play a game again. > > On the internet however it is much easier to abuse social conventions and > get away with it. This applies not only to go but basically all activities, > and therfore one often see extra control systems such has ratings on Ebay, > moderators in discussion groups, etc. > > Japanese rules work perfectly fine in real life, but one have to realize it > is because it is a social game not a mathematical abstraction. > > -Magnus > > > Quoting Dave Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> Japanese: bad. >>> >> >> I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules >> are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the >> last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct >> score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation. >> >> The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter. >> >> ___ >> computer-go mailing list >> computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> >> > > > -- > Magnus Persson > Berlin, Germany > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Strongly agreed on "its is a social game not a mathematical abstraction". As well-known, there have been several contentious very important matches which may even change the direction of Japanese Go history. On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Magnus Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I would also like to add the following: > > The real answer to this question about how to end a game with japanese > rules is that it over a longer course of time it is solved through social > interaction. If someone refuses to score games correctly you simply never > play a game with that person again. Also if someone would do this in a club > setting everyone would soon know about it and the offender would have to > adapt or never play a game again. > > On the internet however it is much easier to abuse social conventions and > get away with it. This applies not only to go but basically all activities, > and therfore one often see extra control systems such has ratings on Ebay, > moderators in discussion groups, etc. > > Japanese rules work perfectly fine in real life, but one have to realize it > is because it is a social game not a mathematical abstraction. > > -Magnus > > > Quoting Dave Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> Japanese: bad. >>> >> >> I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules >> are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the >> last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct >> score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation. >> >> The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter. >> >> ___ >> computer-go mailing list >> computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> >> > > > -- > Magnus Persson > Berlin, Germany > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
I would also like to add the following: The real answer to this question about how to end a game with japanese rules is that it over a longer course of time it is solved through social interaction. If someone refuses to score games correctly you simply never play a game with that person again. Also if someone would do this in a club setting everyone would soon know about it and the offender would have to adapt or never play a game again. On the internet however it is much easier to abuse social conventions and get away with it. This applies not only to go but basically all activities, and therfore one often see extra control systems such has ratings on Ebay, moderators in discussion groups, etc. Japanese rules work perfectly fine in real life, but one have to realize it is because it is a social game not a mathematical abstraction. -Magnus Quoting Dave Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Japanese: bad. I don't think this is the case at all. The Japanese rules are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation. The tortured details, while not elegant, rarely matter. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Magnus Persson Berlin, Germany ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules
Dave Dyer wrote: > The Japanese rules are just a human optimization, to avoid having to make the last 100 meaningless moves, and still arrive at the correct score with a minimum of extraneous manipulation. I shall assume that with "meaningless" you do not mean dame because, under Japanese Rules (not to be confused with online rules) dame in between independently-alive groups are filled, if not earlier, during the counting procedure. So I assume that with "meaningless" you refer to only the approach plays to "dead" stones. 100 is a great exaggeration. In practice it is more like 25. After these preliminary notes, let me address your central remark about "human optimization". Neither the Japanese 1949 Rules, the World Amateur Go Championship 1979 Rules, the Japanese 1989 Rules, nor verbal Japanese-style rulesets or their models like, e.g, the Applicable Traditional Japanese Rules http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/atj.html are anyhow close to being a "human optimization". There could be similar rules though that might qualify: the Simplified Japanese Rules http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html However, the most unfortunately, these are just a model ruleset and not the official Japanese Rules. Even with them, it is hard to see how they would achieve "a minimum of extraneous manipulation" when compared with simple area scoring rules like, e.g., http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/simple.html because an actual performance of the analysis is error-prone (e.g., one may not confuse hypothetically captured stones with real prisoners). Peter Drake wrote: Suppose, under Japanese rules, I throw a (hopeless) stone into your > territory. I keep passing until you've actually removed it (playing > four stones inside your own territory, thus losing a net three points). > If you try to pass as well, I stubbornly insist that the stone is > alive, thus restarting the game. What prevents this sort of abuse? The basic answer (the opponent does not actually approach the liberties) has already been given. Beyond that, the correct answer has to distinguish by used ruleset and possibly tournament rulesets. I forgo the latter and also online rulesets (because there everything is very different from real Japanese rules). For your actually used ruleset (one of the World Amateur Go Championship 1979 Rules, the Japanese 1989 Rules, some verbal Japanese-style ruleset), you need to understand its game end procedures, the definitions of life, death, territory, etc. and their application. See http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html for quite some details (but be prepared to read a few weeks). As an informal shortcut for the Japanese 1989 Rules, 1. end the alternation by passing 2. determine status 2.1 determine the status of your hopeless throw-in stone 2.1.1 determine if it is alive 2.1.1.1 determine if it is uncapturable 2.1.1.1.1 study some representative move-sequences on a virtual board 2.1.1.1.2 make a qualitative choice for those move-sequences 2.1.1.1.3 conclude whether it is uncapturable 2.1.1.2 determine if it is capturable-under-the-stones 2.1.1.2.1 study some representative move-sequences on a virtual board 2.1.1.2.2 make a qualitative choice for those move-sequences 2.1.1.2.3 conclude whether it is capturable-under-the-stones 2.1.1.3 [for experts only] 2.1.2 if it is either uncapturable or capturable-under-the-stones [or: for experts only], then it is alive 2.1.3 else it is dead 2.2 [etc.: other strings, then seki-check, then territory-assignment] 3. remove the dead stones from territory not in seki 4. count So to prevent abuse, apply the rules as well as you can! There is a problem though: "some representative move-sequences" may be too few if the opponent is an abuser. Then call the referee and let him make the qualitative choices. Or, if there is none, perform all of the infinitely many move-sequences and be happy afterwards. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
