[computer-go] GTP and handicap

[Don Dailey]

Should handicap be considered separately?   We don't consider boardsize,
or komi and I think handicap is one of those separate issues,  it
doesn't describe the "rules", just the setup.

For that matter, scoring protocol such as whether to score after 2
passes seems to fit more into that scenario too.

I don't have a strong opinion on this - but certain things seem to go
together.   Or we could try to have a system to fully describe
everything - but then time-control also becomes a factor.   I think I
would be in favor of just the basic 3 or 4 elements and keep the other
setup details out.   But of course there are good arguments either way.
I would just like to see something more explicit than what we have for
describing how to play.

- Don


On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 10:37 +0200, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> We also need a rule for determining whether a pass costs one point.
> And maybe GTP should explicitly state about points for handicap stones.
> 
> All of those are switches, maybe GTP should be extended too support
> variables/switches a'la GoGui?
> 
> Lukasz Lew
> 
> On 9/8/06, Rémi Coulom <Remi.Coulom at univ-lille3.fr> 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/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/