[computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

[Don Dailey]

On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
> On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
> 
> > Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed
> > to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not
> > require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly
> > passes should be awarded a point for his skill.
> 
> This is the heart of my argument. I still consider it a feature when my
> program passes 100+ times in the endgame. I do think that a bot
> that plays hundreds of endgame moves that amount to nothing and
> that their opponent does not even need to answer should pay a point
> for each of those moves. I see it as perfectly fair that the bot with
> the better ability to read, and thus knows it can pass, should be
> rewarded for that reading skill.

Chinese views all this as a clean-up phase that is not important to
the real game and so do I.   I'm certainly not interested in winning
points that way and would take no delight in it.   

I have a question.  With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap
game is dead lost.   If 2 perfect players played a game where one
was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously
it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player 
be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?    Could he
carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect 
opponents wishes?


- Don



> Cheers,
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/