[computer-go] Re: Interesting problem

[David Doshay]

And so we enter the "second phase" ...

On 5, Jan 2007, at 8:50 AM, Mark Boon wrote:

> I think you are mistaken for the real reason of the 'second phase',  
> where he who passes has to pay a point. This 'second phase' only  
> comes into effect after both sides have passed. It's to solve  
> disputes in a fair manner. Since capturing dead stones would cost  
> points, how do you resolve a dispute where your opponent claims his  
> stones are not dead? (Think bent-four corner.)The actual proof  
> consists of playing out the sequence that captures the stones.  
> Every time your opponent passes and you continue playing moves to  
> capture the stones you'd lose a point. That's why passing has to be  
> compensated by paying a point. It's not about Go playing skills  
> that should be rewarded but about being able to resolve disputes  
> fairly.

I can see the purpose of a second phase to resolve disputes over the  
status of specific groups. Having the second phase played out with  
the "give a pass stone" does preserve the state as of the two passes  
that were intended to end the game, so I do not find this to be a  
problem. My argument against the pass stone costing a point applies  
to before the two consecutive passes that end the game.

I would then expect that the moves made in this second phase be  
restricted to the life and death of specific groups in question.

If our bots do this properly then there is no argument or objection  
from me.

Cheers,
David