Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Nick Wedd wrote: According to the game records from the recent ICGA events in Amsterdam, the 19x19 events used Japanese rules with 6.5 komi, and the 9x9 games used Chinese rules, but with 6.5 komi. So I suspect not. All games were played with Chinese rules, with a komi of 6.5. Those who played through KGS had to use Japanese rules, because otherwise KGS would set the komi to 7.5. There is no way to set the komi with kgsgtp. But although KGS games were Japanese, the official counting was Chinese. This led to the confusing situation where one program would win its game, but KGS indicated that it lost. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Dave Dyer wrote: all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. Traditional Territory Scoring rules fail in the most ordinary (!) positions of EACH game, see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html What you claim is false and a myth. -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Been following this tread and it has me concerned both as a beginning player and engine developer. I thought the rules for Go were rather simplistic when it came to scoring: Count all eyes, and spaces owned by each player and each captured stone counted as a point. Whoever had the most points wins. How does that differ from Japanese, Chinese, Korean? -Josh On 7/12/07, Robert Jasiek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Dyer wrote: all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. Traditional Territory Scoring rules fail in the most ordinary (!) positions of EACH game, see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html What you claim is false and a myth. -- robert ___ 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: Why are different rule sets?
I think your table tennis analogy is not really applicable. The rule changes in table tennis were presumably motivated by the need to fix a real problem, and really changed the game. Yes, due to the advancements in rubber technology the game become too fast. Bumm-Bumm-Over. Furthermore the ball should be easier to spot on TV. Another way would be to limit the rubbers, but making the ball larger is easier to control and define. But it was a significant change. New ball technology had to be developed, old balls become absolete, the rule is a disadvantage for Bumm-Bumm players... On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. There's no motivation to change the way the game is actually played. For computers special cases matter. Especially for a search based programm. A search based programm finds every possible special case and plays into this case, because the opponent does not prevent it. Are there something as Universal accepted computer-Go rules? There is - at least on paper - a computer FIDE. The IGGA. Is there something as the IGGA computer-Go ruleset? Are all tournaments played according a well defined and uniform rule set? Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I think your table tennis analogy is not really applicable. The rule changes in table tennis were presumably motivated by the need to fix a real problem, and really changed the game. Yes, due to the advancements in rubber technology the game become too fast. Bumm-Bumm-Over. Furthermore the ball should be easier to spot on TV. Another way would be to limit the rubbers, but making the ball larger is easier to control and define. But it was a significant change. New ball technology had to be developed, old balls become absolete, the rule is a disadvantage for Bumm-Bumm players... On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. There's no motivation to change the way the game is actually played. For computers special cases matter. Especially for a search based programm. A search based programm finds every possible special case and plays into this case, because the opponent does not prevent it. Are there something as Universal accepted computer-Go rules? There is - at least on paper - a computer FIDE. The IGGA. Is there something as the IGGA computer-Go ruleset? According to the game records from the recent ICGA events in Amsterdam, the 19x19 events used Japanese rules with 6.5 komi, and the 9x9 games used Chinese rules, but with 6.5 komi. So I suspect not. Are all tournaments played according a well defined and uniform rule set? No. Ing-sponsored events used the Ing (SST) rules. Japanese-sponsored events such as the Gifu Challenge and the CGF Special Meeting use Japanese rules. Chinese-sponsored events use Chinese rules. 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: Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For computers special cases matter. Especially for a search based programm. A search based programm finds every possible special case and plays into this case, because the opponent does not prevent it. Are there something as Universal accepted computer-Go rules? There is - at least on paper - a computer FIDE. The IGGA. Is there something as the IGGA computer-Go ruleset? According to the game records from the recent ICGA events in Amsterdam, the 19x19 events used Japanese rules with 6.5 komi, and the 9x9 games used Chinese rules, but with 6.5 komi. So I suspect not. Don't trust the rule specification (or timing information for that matter) in the raw game records, they may have been set differently to circumvent difficulties by those who played using a remote system. All Go events in Amsterdam used Chinese rules. IIRC the last time the Olympiad used Japanese rules was in 2002, after that it was always Chinese rules. BTW I have no idea what IGGA means, International Guild Of Glass Artists, International Grooving and Grinding Association, International Gomputer Games Association, is it a typo??? Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
BTW I have no idea what IGGA means, International Guild Of Glass Artists, International Grooving and Grinding Association, International Gomputer Games Association, is it a typo??? No, gomputers are real: http://www.google.com/search?q=gomputer ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
- Original Message From: Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW I have no idea what IGGA means, International Guild Of Glass Artists, International Grooving and Grinding Association, International Gomputer Games Association, is it a typo??? No, gomputers are real: http://www.google.com/search?q=gomputer Maybe someday dictionaries will include gomputer,n: a computer which plays Go at the shodan level or better. Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, gomputers are real: http://www.google.com/search?q=gomputer Maybe you were joking, but did you notice that one of the hits from that search was a URL where the spelling was not only used _intentionally_, but also -- in a remarkable occurrence of serendipity and relevance to this list -- used to describe a computer-go project? The page describes the efforts of a group at the University of Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing to develop a go program on a cluster of FPGAs. Hence GOmputer: http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/pc2/index.php?id=191 [Pipe it through http://translate.google.com/ if you don't read German.] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Does Chrilly have anything to do with this project? -Josh On 7/12/07, Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/12/07, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, gomputers are real: http://www.google.com/search?q=gomputer Maybe you were joking, but did you notice that one of the hits from that search was a URL where the spelling was not only used _intentionally_, but also -- in a remarkable occurrence of serendipity and relevance to this list -- used to describe a computer-go project? The page describes the efforts of a group at the University of Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing to develop a go program on a cluster of FPGAs. Hence GOmputer: http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/pc2/index.php?id=191 [Pipe it through http://translate.google.com/ if you don't read German.] ___ 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: Why are different rule sets?
For computer purposes, this is the problem: Territorial scoring is more human-convenient, can be done without filling the dame or removing dead stones. But it all depends on knowing which groups are live, which dead, which in seki. If there's a disagreement, it needs to be settled by resuming the game (assuming there isn't some superko problem depending on choice of rule set.) But knowing how that would work depends on being seeing the situation and the needed plays at a human level of accuracy. There's no reason in principle a computer program can't be accurate in scoring, but generally they aren't; it's hard enough to program something good enough to teach human beginners, and the scoring is a roughly equally difficult problem on top of that! Area scoring... If it's on the board, it's alive. A program might need to make lots of tedious moves removing dead stones, but what's tedium to a program? If a program doesn't remove some dead stones, it loses points, but the score itself is defined whenever both players pass. If we aren't going to explicitly code in a lot of go knowledge, area scoring is much easier. But once a program learns to play a successful area-based play, it wouldn't be playing the same game as Japanese most Western players. For the territorial game, at some point you'd need to bring in either knowledgable humans or a complex territorial scoring/estimation program to settle things. Forrest Curo - This email was sent using AIS WebMail. http://www.americanis.net/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Does Chrilly have anything to do with this project? -Josh No. Up to my knowledge a student makes his Diplomarbeit (masters-thesis) on this topic. But building such a machine is somewhat beyond a masters thesis. The problem is: There are no funds, no money available. Generally the Univ. Paderborn has relative a lot of money for hardware, but it is very difficult to get money for software development. Not just for Go, for any field. Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
I thought the rules for Go were rather simplistic when it came to scoring: Count all eyes, and spaces owned by each player and each captured stone counted as a point. Whoever had the most points wins. How does that differ from Japanese, Chinese, Korean? Hi Josh, Many of your recent questions are more about go than about computer go, and the best place to search to get them answered is here: http://senseis.xmp.net/ Darren P.S. There is also rec.games.go, but I think people only post there when they want to argue about something. (Disclaimer: I've not followed rec.games.go in about 5 years, I suppose it may have mellowed since.) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 08:50 -0700, Dave Dyer wrote: On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. That ignores the very real problems that many beginners have trying to understand the logic behind Japanese rules. Computer Go has also benefitted tremendously by using Chinese-style rules. I don't think MoGo would have achieved such stunning success in 1 year without them. I also find it ugly that in the small percentage of games where disputes occur, the common solution is to stop the clock and verbally dispute the position, or appeal to a higher authority, instead of having the players finish the game on the board. In tournament play this ugliness is magnified. As a cute example, I recently ran across a KGS game (non-tournament) where a player was complaining that his opponent had lost the game and escaped. After looking at the game, it was clear that the escaper had actually won by half a point, but his opponent didn't agree to the status of a group. He escaped in frustration. The player who misunderstood the position was rated 7k, but it took me several minutes worth of demonstrations before he could understand the position. I have attached the game. Finally, I think the people involved with the AGA rules would be rightfully upset at your summary of the situation. Those interested in their view on the matter can read: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.commentary.html In particular, the section Transmittal letter, dated from 1991. Yep, these rule debates have been going on for quite some time. -Jeff Piet-yukatto.sgf Description: application/go-sgf ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
-Original Message- From: Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... P.S. There is also rec.games.go, but I think people only post there when they want to argue about something. (Disclaimer: I've not followed rec.games.go in about 5 years, I suppose it may have mellowed since.) Actually,?rec.games.go had something of a rapture and most people who used it have moved to a moderated forum at http://godiscussions.com./ For those left behind, I can only suppose another forum at http://godistribulations.com./?is being readied. - Dave Hillis Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
