[Computer-go] Operators for Frisbee Go Simulation

Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira gonmf at sapo.pt
Thu Apr 14 07:38:25 PDT 2016


>>> On frisbee Go itself I used the following definition:
>>> 1. An intended play must be legal -- no playing on top of a stone hoping
>>> it 'falls' to the neighbor positions.
>>
>> Accepted.
>
> What's the point of this rule?

The point of the rule is ease of implementation for computer programs,
to promote adoption. A program that already plays Go will probably keep
tabs on legal plays, not every board intersection, so this rule reduces
the scope of things that need to be changed.

I also had another restriction in my program that I forgot to mention:
6. Both players must be using the same probability p.

Again for ease of implementation.

In testing I've also noted that a komi of 7.0 or 7.5 is no longer
reasonable in Frisbee Go...

Cheers,
Gonçalo



On 14/04/2016 14:41, John Tromp wrote:
>>> On frisbee Go itself I used the following definition:
>>> 1. An intended play must be legal -- no playing on top of a stone hoping
>>> it 'falls' to the neighbor positions.
>>
>> Accepted.
> 
> What's the point of this rule?
> 
> I feel it is an unnecessary restriction, similar to the no-suicide rule,
> and would vote against it.
> 
> As I said before, it suffices to have positive probability of a legal move.
> 
> In real life frisbee go, a player doesn't need to state his intended throwing
> target, so if it ends up landing in a legal place, it's accepted, regardless
> of whether it was aimed there, or at a possibly occupied neighbour.
> 
> regards,
> -John



More information about the Computer-go mailing list