On 11-aug-08, at 15:23, Don Dailey wrote:
But is it really? Now instead of clearly defined rules, you enter
the
domain of judgment calls and these should be minimized.
I don't agree with such an unforgiving attitude at all. It works for
tournaments but not for demonstration games. You don't want to give
fuel to those who argue "yeah, but the computer can respond in a
millisecond where the human has a physical response time of at least
half a second."
In demonstration games what is important is the spirit. And it
doesn't do the computer-Go community any good for a program to
persist in an absolutely lost position, play one for a hundred more
moves that the human is physically unable to play in time.
It will have to give one way or another. I also don't like the fixed
time-limit very much because Go has such an unpredictable game-
length. So Fisher time could be a solution. On the other hand, once
the level of the programs becomes well established, programmers could
also make it resign a lot sooner. In a 1,000 ELO game a 99% win-rate
might occasionally still turn around. But they'll probably find out
that as the level gets higher, say 3,000 ELO, you end up never
turning around a 90% win-rate. Or maybe even 80%. If programmers want
humans to play their software then they have to be also a little
accomodating in that respect, even if that means giving up a game
where you might still win once in a thousand times.
Mark
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
