[computer-go] Please have your bot resign, for your own good

[Erik van der Werf]

On Jan 2, 2008 5:54 PM, Don Dailey <drdailey at cox.net> wrote:
> Erik van der Werf wrote:
> > I'd propose something simpler:
> >
> > No time is deducted for pass.
> >
> > With this rule your program will only loose time when it absolutely
> > has to respond to the opponents move. In most games the winning
> > program can simply play until it has a sufficient number of
> > unconditionally alive stones on the board and then pass forever
> > without ever risking a loss on time.
> >
> This is not manageable and is also subject to manipulation.    The
> server could wait forever to see if a move might be pass.     The only
> reasonable way to implement this is to allow a liberal time margin for a
> pass move.     For instance if your bot passes,  up to 5 seconds is
> "forgiven."

Yes, it's probably a good idea to set some kind of upper limit.


> I'm somewhat opposed to this idea.   The decision to pass is still a
> "considered decision" and I don't see why pass should be treated
> differently.

Normally, for rules using area-counting, pass is at best a worthless move.
Your rules shouldn't encourage pass-fights.


> Better would be some kind of victory declaration.    The program claims
> victory - which means that it agrees that every move from now on (for
> itself) is a pass move.     It would be the counterpart to resignation -
> with the provision that you give up all rights to defend yourself if you
> are wrong.

Won positions may still have forcing moves for the opponent (e.g.,
atari-connect, etc.).

I don't see a need for a separate victory declaration. If pass (and
resign) are good enough for humans why would bots need more?

Erik