On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 19:40 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > After reading up a bit on this issue, I didn't find a clear positive > consensus in this list about a preferred ruleset for computer-go, > human-computer-go, real life go and go servers. > (I did find a negative consensus about the current Japanese rules, > though) > > I'm curious if there exists a positive consensus about a > particular ruleset from the point of view of a go software user who is > also very familiar with real life go playing (so not from a > mathematical or pedagogical point of view, but from the point of view > of a go player playing on a server and/or playing against a bot). This > user could prefer area counting or territory counting.
I think the current rules CGOS uses are pretty popular for CGOS and I think it's what you get with KGS games played under Chinese rules too. CGOS rules are basically Tromp/Taylor rules but where suicide is forbidden. Suicide makes the game slightly less practical, especially for computers (but it's not a big deal.) Other than that Tromp/Taylor rules shine because they are very intuitively simple to learn and state. Just simple and clean. I'm not an expert on AGA rules but I think it's almost the same. There are tons of simple rule variations, the kind of ko to use, whether to use suicide or not, how many passes to end the game, scoring system, how to deal with handicaps, which komi to use, etc. I think Japanese hurts the game, but even if we confine ourselves to Chinese it hurts the game that there are so many variations of the rules. You cannot really play a game without first negotiating which rules you will be using. - Don > Specifically: could the current AGA rules be a serious > competitor (http://www.usgo.org/resources/downloads/completerules.pdf)? > > Dave > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Erik van der Werf > Verzonden: vr 24-10-2008 12:18 > Aan: computer-go > Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Ending games by two passes > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:47 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that white is > alive with > > TT-rules (=Tromp-Taylor?) or other rulesets with positional superko > if black > > has not enough eyes left to fill as ko threats? > > Yes. > > > If that's true, I would be disgusted if positional superko would > ever be > > accepted as a rule in human vs. human games. > > Does it really matter if it is human vs. human games? Why have > different (inferior?) standards for computers anyway? > > Erik > _______________________________________________ > 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/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
