On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Álvaro Begué <alvaro.be...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Jonathan Chetwynd > > <j.chetw...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> > >> Could a 'doubling dice'** encourage early resignation by programs? > >> > >> each program would have to forfeit a double game, if it played on and > lost > >> the game, > >> but could resign for a single loss. > > > > The problem is that you can still play the game out until there is just > one > > or two moves left and then resign. So for this work it has to be done > at > > some reasonable point in the game and who is to decide when that should > be? > > I don't understand your objection, Don. The side that is winning will > at some point determine that the probability of winning the game is > large enough (say, more than 80%) and it will propose doubling. At > that point the losing side can resign and lose 1 point; resigning > later (after accepting the doubling) costs 2 points. > I did not understand that the player who thinks he is winning makes the proposal. I guess I don't know anything about backgammon. > > I have mixed feelings about this idea. On the one hand, having a > doubling cube in a deterministic game seems completely bizarre, but > since we have been thinking about go probabilistically for a while > now, it seems kind of natural at the same time. > > In any case, I agree that playing the game well is difficult enough > and we should concentrate on that. I am happy with CGOS-style games > that are played to the bitter end. > Yes, it's not like WE are playing those games. > > Álvaro. > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@dvandva.org > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
