>From what I know about rulesets, I actually prefer AGA. I believe it was designed to have the same result for both area and territory scoring. It has the pass costs one point rule. There's something special about if white passes first because then the number of stones places on the board are not equal. It also has an (N-1) compensation for handicap which seems more correct to me. Of course, the (N-1) only applies when doing area scoring; when doing territory scoring, it just works out.
>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lukasz Lew >Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:28 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go >Subject: Re: [computer-go] Fw: Compensation for handicap plays? > >I did some research and I would like to change my vote. > >My criterion for perfect rules are elegance, simplicity and >consistency. >As You know I want unification of area and territory scoring. >So here is my proposal. > >The unification needs that *pass* costs one point. >And this is only modification needed. > >Agitation: > >You can think about pass as playing the stone not on the board >but directly >to the opponent's captured stones. > >This is elegant both under area and territory scoring because: > >a) On area scoring giving a stone to the opponent is 0 points >as well as >playing in your own territory as well as >playing in opponent territory. > >b) On territory scoring all 3 options >(opponents captured stones, yours, and opponents territories) >cost one point. > >The handicaps are set up in a way that white passes between >Black's moves. >Ie. he gives one point to the black N-1 times. > >Please think about it. > >Łukasz > >On 12/29/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> To be honest, it seems very ugly to me but it seems to be what the >> majority >> like. >> >> Apparently KGS handles it this way, the program just has to >magically >> know what the compensation is. But that's true of any >handicap system, >> the program has to have the correct understanding. >> >> I think we had this discussion before, but there appears to be no >> concise way to state the rules with the myriads of variations they >> entail. >> >> - Don >> >> >> On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 01:57 +0100, John Tromp wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 12/28/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > Just to be precise: KGS does option 2 if you >select chinese >> > rules, and >> > > it also does option 1 when you select AGA rules. >> > >> > And to be more precise, here is how it might work: >> > >> > Handicap >> > -------- >> > 0 - komi is 7.5 and either player plays black. >> > 1 - komi is 0.5 and weaker player plays black. >> > 2 - komi is 0.5, weaker player gets >black, white gets >> > 2 points. >> > 3 - komi is 0.5 , weaker player gets black, white >> > gets 3 points. >> > >> > At 2 handicap and beyond, the net effect is as if komi was >> > increased by >> > the number of stones handicap (but it won't be implemented >> > that way.) >> > >> > Is this how everyone else understands it? >> > >> > That makes little sense to me. If you want to give white >extra points >> > at the end >> > of the game, then put it in the komi. That's what it's for! >> > So above, for 2hcap, komi will be 2.5, and for 3hcap, it will be >> > 3.5... >> > Why introduce 2 different komi's that need to be added? >> > >> > -John >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/
