[Computer-go] kgs-genmove_cleanup again

Petr Baudis pasky at ucw.cz
Mon Mar 29 08:06:30 PDT 2010


On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Petr Baudis <pasky at ucw.cz> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:20:03AM -0700, William Shubert wrote:
> >> The difference is that humans can talk with each other to resolve
> >> differences. Computers can't. So they must follow a stricter set of
> >> rules.
> >
> > Yes, but if human plays with a computer, it can't talk to the computer
> > either.
> >
> >> Alain has it right. :) I don't see what will go wrong if you change your
> >> program to implement the cleanup command correctly. The original email
> >> game a log of what happened in a game that ended up wrongly scored, but
> >> admits that the program hadn't followed the cleanup protocol fully. If
> >> it did, then the game would have been correctly scored. So the problems
> >> look to me to be in the program, not in the protocol.
> >
> > Ok! I just thought the protocol could be easily modified to be more
> > user-friendly. I will change Pachi.
> 
> What's the easiest way to fix this?
> 
> Would it suffice to return no own dead stones at all (to make it
> explicit that we now assume everything to be alive) for the
> final_status_list dead command after a cleanup phase?
> 
> In principle this should force the human player to remove the bot's
> dead stones as well, right?

The easiest way to fix this for me will be to just avoid passing if any
stones are considered dead. This will make the game much more tedious
for the human, but it's what wms wishes. :( I don't want to do ugly
second-order hacks like second-guessing final_status_list based on last
genmove command.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
http://pasky.or.cz/ | "Ars longa, vita brevis." -- Hippocrates



More information about the Computer-go mailing list