[computer-go] Fw: Compensation for handicap plays?

[Łukasz Lew]

I did some research and I would like to change my vote.

My criterion for perfect rules are elegance, simplicity and consistency.
As You know I want unification of area and territory scoring.
So here is my proposal.

The unification needs that *pass* costs one point.
And this is only modification needed.

Agitation:

You can think about pass as playing the stone not on the board but directly
to the opponent's captured stones.

This is elegant both under area and territory scoring because:

a) On area scoring giving a stone to the opponent is 0 points as well as
playing in your own territory as well as
playing in opponent territory.

b) On territory scoring all 3 options
(opponents captured stones, yours, and opponents territories) cost one point.

The handicaps are set up in a way that white passes between Black's moves.
Ie. he gives one point to the black N-1 times.

Please think about it.

Łukasz

On 12/29/06, Don Dailey <drd at mit.edu> wrote:
> To be honest, it seems very ugly to me but it seems to be what the
> majority
> like.
>
> Apparently KGS handles it this way,  the program just has to magically
> know what the compensation is.   But that's true of any handicap system,
> the program has to have the correct understanding.
>
> I think we had this discussion before, but there appears to be no
> concise way to state the rules with the myriads of variations they
> entail.
>
> - Don
>
>
> On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 01:57 +0100, John Tromp wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/28/06, Don Dailey <drd at mit.edu> wrote:
> >         > Just to be precise: KGS does option 2 if you select chinese
> >         rules, and
> >         > it also does option 1 when you select AGA rules.
> >
> >         And to be more precise,  here is how it might work:
> >
> >           Handicap
> >           --------
> >               0    - komi is 7.5 and either player plays black.
> >               1    - komi is 0.5 and weaker player plays black.
> >               2    - komi is 0.5, weaker player gets black, white gets
> >         2 points.
> >               3    - komi is 0.5 , weaker player gets black, white
> >         gets 3 points.
> >
> >         At 2 handicap and beyond, the net effect is as if komi was
> >         increased by
> >         the number of stones handicap (but it won't be implemented
> >         that way.)
> >
> >         Is this how everyone else understands it?
> >
> > That makes little sense to me. If you want to give white extra points
> > at the end
> > of the game, then put it in the komi. That's what it's for!
> > So above, for 2hcap, komi will be 2.5, and for 3hcap, it will be
> > 3.5...
> > Why introduce 2 different komi's that need to be added?
> >
> > -John
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>