[computer-go] GTP and handicap

[Don Dailey]

I do like the idea of having a very explicit way of stating the ruleset
but that doesn't have to be the way GTP does it.    

I consider these 2 different things.  The problem is that you cannot
easily specify the ruleset without having to go into an explanation.
Although there are some "prepackaged" rulesets available,  an easily
understood code is even better because  you may not be familiar with the
prepackaged specified ruleset.  In other words you may still have to
explain it.  You get, statements like, "We are playing with the XYZ
rules which are ...(followed by an explanation of the rules.) 
 
With GTP it's not a big deal, once the rules are understood it can be a
series of commands to specify each aspect of the rules and this is
fine.   

The idea of adding negotiation protocol to the end - it can get tricky
but perhaps it should be optional?  Or after a hyphen to specify that
this isn't part of the actual play but how it's scored.     Something
like "C1N" or "C1N-2"  - both would describe CGOS but the second is more
complete as it says "Chinese, PSK, No passes, scored as is after 2
passes."

- Don


 
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 09:17 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 22:01 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> >   
> >> By the way, GTP needs a way to specify the rules of the game.
> >>     
> >
> > Yes, I agree with this.   There should be a very clean way to specify
> > the rules of the game in a very concise and unambiguous way.   
> >
> > It could be coded up in a string, where each character of the string has
> > some meaning, such as whether suicide is allowed, which version of KO is
> > used, scoring system used, etc.   Then it could be expressed very
> > conveniently in a short string.   
> >
> > What are the major differences?   I don't have a problem with komi being
> > expresses separately.   
> >
> >   Here is a little try:   J = Japanses scoring
> >                           C = Chinese
> >  
> >                           0 = simple KO
> >                           1 = positional super ko
> >                           2 = situation super ko
> >
> >                           S = suicide allowed 
> >                           N = No suicide
> >
> > So you could have  "C1N" as the rules cgos uses.   Strict tromp/talor is
> > C1S", etc.
> >
> > I'm sure this doesn't consider all the possibilities, but it at least
> > gets you close.   
> >
> > I don't like the idea of having a different nomenclature for each kind
> > of rule-set, such as "Ing", "Australian",  "Tromp/taylor" etc.
> >
> > - Don
> For Chinese rules, we would need one more parameter for score 
> negotiation: no negotiation (everything is alive) like in CGOS, or 
> negotiation by agreement-or-referee, like in KGS tournaments. Maybe 
> agreement-or-continue, and agreement-or-kill-all-dead should be other 
> options.
> 
> Rémi
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/