OK, now I see your perspective ... the invader has the right to
ask the defender to prove their skill, which I must say seems
very much like a gamble to me, but should not be punished
if their attempt is refuted. As such, I claim only that in this
case we have to assume that it will be the norm for our programs
because this is an unequal situation: no possible cost but some
possible benefit. And indeed, it is what we see most programs do.
Again, it only comes down to points when the defender tries
things that the opponent can repeatedly ignore! If the invader
is trying things that have to be answered move for move, then
there is no penalty for trying. To me, this shows that there is
balance in the risk/reward equation when the defender can
pick up a point for properly evaluating the logical reality of
the board position and then pass.
This says to me that the one point loss per move you play that
for which a defense is not required is indeed measuring skill and
punishing a gamble.
The Japanese player you mention below does not have to decide
in advance if their opponent's defense of an invasion is possible or
not, he just needs to determine if the opponent needs to answer at
all. And to me, if this happens in the opening, the midgame, or the
endgame, it is a standard part of determining the value of a move,
and is a very good way to determine the strength of play. If my
opponent keeps playing tenuki when I think my moves are meaningful,
then I know that I am either going to win very big or get slaughtered
by somebody who knows much better than me that those moves really
did not matter. If they pass multiple times I have to ask why and look
more carefully.
In fact, it seems to me that saying PASS is the bigger gamble: you
can easily just answer the invasion move for move and not change
the score at all ... it takes greater faith to pass in order to pick up
that point. I do not see why the situation should not be symmetric,
and thus the invader must have equal faith that their probe *must*
be answered.
And while we are evaluating gambling in games of reason, I think
that the skill level of everyone on this list is such that they have
tried things they are not sure are going to work. It is the norm
in very hard games, and we all know that Go is hard. This kind of
"gambling" is even required in high handicap games.
Cheers,
David
On 4, Jan 2007, at 9:08 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 15:57 +0200, 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.
No, this inhibits the application of skill. A "silly" invasion that
wastes time is punished in all rules sets, but in Chinese it may not
be silly if it doesn't waste time - Japanese rules unfairly defines
these moves as "silly."
Chinese is better in this regard. You can try these invasions and
put your opponent under pressure to refute them.
When a Japanese player has a possible invasion that he knows is
difficult
but possible to defend, he must decide whether to play "correctly" or
whether to gamble that his opponent won't be able to find the defense.
With Chinese you can attack without inhibition in this situation and
force your opponent to prove his skill. You can play more exciting
games with Chinese rules.
- Don
_______________________________________________
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/
