On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:16 -0300, Mark Boon wrote: > > 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."
This is not an unforgiving attitude as you cast it. It is just the opposite. How is it you view taking a game away from the rightful winner as being forgiving? It shows no respect for the human being behind the program. It's real easy when you don't see anything but an unfeeling robot, but if it had been another person sitting behind that chair he would likely feel that someone had been heavy handed. It's easy to be "gracious" when you are not the victim. I would be angry if I worked hard to control my time usage, only for my opponent to be forgiven at my expense, despite the rules. And if this really is just a fun little demonstration game, then do not use clocks, that was certainly not in the spirit of things. - Don > > > 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/
