On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote: > > > Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed > > to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not > > require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly > > passes should be awarded a point for his skill. > > This is the heart of my argument. I still consider it a feature when my > program passes 100+ times in the endgame. I do think that a bot > that plays hundreds of endgame moves that amount to nothing and > that their opponent does not even need to answer should pay a point > for each of those moves. I see it as perfectly fair that the bot with > the better ability to read, and thus knows it can pass, should be > rewarded for that reading skill.
Chinese views all this as a clean-up phase that is not important to the real game and so do I. I'm certainly not interested in winning points that way and would take no delight in it. I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game? Could he carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect opponents wishes? - Don > Cheers, > David > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
