Goncalos were on 7th of April. Just copying them here: --- On frisbee Go itself I used the following definition: 1. An intended play must be legal -- no playing on top of a stone hoping it 'falls' to the neighbor positions. 2. Unintentional plays that are illegal are nulled and don't imply a desire to end the match. 3. The distribution of unintentional plays around the 4 neighbors is constant even at the border where there are never 4 neighbors; "You hit the target with prob. p, and its 4 neighbours with probability (1-p)/4.". The residual probability at the border is not reused for on-board plays. 4. Probability parameter p cannot be changed midgame, for simplification. 5. Technically, using the GTP, I assumed genmove_reg+play commands are used, instead of genmove+undo+play or something frisbee specific. This is probably stating the obvious. --- Also your example for counting looked correct.
Also when trying to theoretically solve even very simple L+D situations this game feels quite tricky for me and very different from Go. Btw, for the theoretical question posed earlier (regarding the 3 point eye) I assumed the p to be the chance of deviation. Not the chance to hit the target. So it would A) p=0.2, B) p=0.24, C) p=0.28 if we use p the way Goncalo defined it. 2016-04-12 13:29 GMT+02:00 "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de>: > Hello MArc, > > thanks for your contribution. > >> I still haven't seen an exactly specified ruleset for this game. >> Goncalo made some assumptions earlier, which were not yet confirmed. > > Oh, from what day is his posting? > > >> Also I would strongly recommend to not have any clearup-methods >> allowed, but all positions have to be cleared up by "hand" and all >> stones on the board in the end are considered alive. > > Interesting proposal. > To make sure that I understood you correctly, let's count an artificial > example > position (on 9x9-board) where both players have passed intentionally: > > Final position: > . x o . o . o . . > o o o o o . . o . > . . . . . . o . o > x x x x . . o o x > . . . x . o o x x > . . . x . o . x . > . . . x . o . x . > x x x x . o o x o > . . . . . . . x . > > "Chinese style counting" with all stones considered alive: > - X O O O - O O O > O O O O O - - O O > - - - - - - O O O > X X X X - - O O X > X X X X - O O X X > X X X X - O - X - > X X X X - O - X - > X X X X - O O X O > - - - - - - - X - > > Cells with X count for player x, > cells with O counts for player o, > cells with - are neutral. > > Did I get it correctly? > > Ingo. > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
