It is currently Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:50 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #61 Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:37 am 
Tengen

Posts: 5200
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 719
lightvector wrote:
* "Bent 4 in corner, double ko death, are dead regardless of ko threats"
* "Basic moonshine life is not possible, the false eye group will actually die during cleanup play"


These positions do not even remotely describe Japanese rules behaviour sufficiently.

So you do NOT want minimally simple Japanese-style rules.

You may indeed need ko-pass-like rules. More importantly, you will need locality and capturability as in the Japanese 2003 Rules. Including local-3 and capturable-3 because dissolution of direct kos is a feature of Japanese-style rules based on fulfilling precedents.

Let Matti show you bent-4-in-the-corner that is a seki.

Why do you create problems for yourself? You take J1989 as the model. Why not take Verbal European-Japanese Rules as the model?
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j_verbal_status.pdf

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #62 Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:54 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 311
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 44
Rank: 2d
lightvector wrote:
* "No territory in seki"
* "No gain for filling one-sided seki dame during cleanup"
* "Bent 4 in corner, double ko death, are dead regardless of ko threats"
This level of compatibility is not easy indeed, but this goes beyond what the average player considers "Japanese-style". IGS - despite being a Japanese server - used to count territory in seki, for example. And one-sided dame does not seem any different than reverting to the earlier result for three points without capturing - a natural consequence of temperature change.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When you use this with superko where passes lift bans, it has an actual purpose. Without that, from a practical point having an n-fold repetition rule, a two-pass rule AND a separate pass-repetition rule still seems redundant.
Then you can think of it as a fail-safe provision. No matter how you tinker with other rules, it is there to stop play in a reasonable spot. :)
Taking it out without adding anything else means that sending-two-returning-one is highly problematic under Area Scoring + Simple Ko - one does not want this position to be a no result. This rule is an effective way to bound that case, and also any future cases that I can't think of. One could also adopt a "count how many stones were captured of each color during this long cycle" rule, or something like that. That would be a different way to solve it. Either way, one actually does need a rule here rather than just having nothing.
That's what I suggested: since you already have n-fold repetition, that could also handle this without another rule (n-th repetition is draw/win/loss depending on captures - a common solution in computer go).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #63 Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:16 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 588
Liked others: 92
Was liked: 669
Rank: maybe 2d
moha wrote:
lightvector wrote:
* "No territory in seki"
* "No gain for filling one-sided seki dame during cleanup"
* "Bent 4 in corner, double ko death, are dead regardless of ko threats"
This level of compatibility is not easy indeed, but this goes beyond what the average player considers "Japanese-style". IGS - despite being a Japanese server - used to count territory in seki, for example. And one-sided dame does not seem any different than reverting to the earlier result for three points without capturing - a natural consequence of temperature change.

On the other hand, given that the current ruleset works, and has been loosely verified in test runs, it would be nice if when people analyze a pro game with Lizzie using KataGo it produces the correct result given these details, except in cases that are dozens of times rarer.

moha wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then you can think of it as a fail-safe provision. No matter how you tinker with other rules, it is there to stop play in a reasonable spot. :)
Taking it out without adding anything else means that sending-two-returning-one is highly problematic under Area Scoring + Simple Ko - one does not want this position to be a no result. This rule is an effective way to bound that case, and also any future cases that I can't think of. One could also adopt a "count how many stones were captured of each color during this long cycle" rule, or something like that. That would be a different way to solve it. Either way, one actually does need a rule here rather than just having nothing.
That's what I suggested: since you already have n-fold repetition, that could also handle this without another rule (n-th repetition is draw/win/loss depending on captures - a common solution in computer go).


From a computer perspective, it's not obvious that looping through all positions intermediate to the last repetition to count quantity of captures should necessarily be simpler than checking if there exists an earlier repetition with a pass. Both are pieces of logic that have to be implemented - and implemented in addition to just noticing that there is a repetition at all. So it's not as if one of them is "a new rule" and yet the other one is "not a new rule". Nonetheless, it may be very slightly simpler to implement, so I'll consider it.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #64 Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:11 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 588
Liked others: 92
Was liked: 669
Rank: maybe 2d
Matti wrote:
lightvector wrote:
Additionally, your very own example indicates some difficulty if ko-blocking persists forever and is never cleared when a ko dissolves, at least as it is currently formulated. Maybe a different formulation of the "location associated to a ko-block" would work though.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c
$$ ----------------------
$$ | . X O . O X . . .
$$ | X O . O O X . . .
$$ | . X O O X X . . . .
$$ | X O O X X . . . . .
$$ | O O X X . . . . . .
$$ | X X X X . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$[/go]

One possibility to solve this problem would be to define ko as a pair: the stone to be captured and the point where the new stone is to be played. A ko-block is assigned to this pair. In the position above the ko captured from different direction would be another ko without a ko block, and blck stones can be killed.


Assigning a block to the pair greatly complicates the implementation and I'm going to just bite the bullet and not do it if that's the only way, because with pairs it's not possible (for example) in any computer implementation to store just a 19x19 grid of marked spots or to provide a nice 19x19 input to a neural net. How about assigning the block purely only to the opponent stone to be recaptured? So:

* When capturing in a ko, the new stone played is marked with a block.
* Capturing (i.e. re-capturing) a ko where the stone to be captured is blocked is prohibited.
* The opponent may spend a turn to remove a block.

I can still construct an anomalous position, but it seems to increase by 1 the length of "ko recapture chains" necessary to produce the anomaly, making the possibility even more "rulesbeasty" and unlikely and is no more complicated to state or to implement. I'm willing to bite the bullet and just accept the remaining anomaly, unless this making this change causes the rules to break in a more trivial way.

@Matti - I'd still be interested in your thoughts on molasses ko and what your reasoning is for needing to unblock each stage in it separately being better. Thank you so much for your comments already.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Molasses ko?
$$ ----------------------
$$ | X X O . O X . . .
$$ | X O . O O X . . .
$$ | X X O O X X . . . .
$$ | X . X O X . . . . .
$$ | X . X O X . . . . .
$$ | X X O O X . . . . .
$$ | O O O X X . . . . .
$$ | X X X X . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$[/go]

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #65 Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:10 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 304
Liked others: 3
Was liked: 41
Rank: 5 dan
lightvector wrote:
@Matti - I'd still be interested in your thoughts on molasses ko and what your reasoning is for needing to unblock each stage in it separately being better. Thank you so much for your comments already.

Let's compare a molasses ko and a two stage ko with two additional single kos.
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$c Molasses ko?
$$ ----------------------
$$ | X X O . O X . . .
$$ | X O . O O X . . .
$$ | X X O O X X . . . .
$$ | X . X O X . . . . .
$$ | X . X O X . . . . .
$$ | X X O O X . . . . .
$$ | O O O X X . . . . .
$$ | X X X X . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$[/go]

With the rule to unblock ko each stage separately black can kill in the molasses ko. With the rule to unblock only one ko, stones cannot be killed.
--
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$cB
$$ ----------------------
$$ | X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X O X . X . X O O . .
$$ | O . O X O X O X O . .
$$ | . O O O O O O X O . .
$$ | O O X X X X X X . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

With the rule unblock ko each stage separately this is seki. With the rule to unblock only one ko, stones can be killed.

The rules work in opposite ways in the positions. I estimate molasses ko to be more rare that the second position. Therefore I would prefer rules which makes the second position seki. Another possibility is to introduce ko-blocks where a string of more than one stone gets repeatedly captured, bt I think that opens another can of worms.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #66 Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:35 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10543
Liked others: 3495
Was liked: 3313
Molasses ko is actually very hot. When the rules allow passes into the mix, strange things can happen.

Anyway, molasses ko has only been known to have occurred once in go history. If it had occurred in top play, even 1,000 years ago, I expect that word would have spread, and some record would have survived. Ancient texts show hanezeki, which may not even have occurred in actual play. How could they not show molasses ko, if they knew about it?

In all the millions of self play games by bots, has molasses ko occurred even once? Should we worry about it in rules for training?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

My two main guides in life:
My mother and my wife. :)

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #67 Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:06 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 588
Liked others: 92
Was liked: 669
Rank: maybe 2d
Thanks. Okay, I am going to amend the drafted rules to assign ko-blocks to the stone being recaptured, rather than the empty point of the ko. They will also persist as long as the stone remains on the board. I think the complexity of these rules is almost the same as the earlier draft (slightly simpler in some regards, slightly more wordy in others). It's about as easy to actually code up too.

I think this should get both of Matti's positions correct. It will still show anomalies for *even longer* chains of kos due to assigning a block to only a stone rather than the pair of stones of a ko, but whatever, that's fine. It will also still share the "rules beast" issue in the other thread of position B for J89 rules where a double ko death can be won, but the most "obvious" interpretation of J89 also shares that issue, so I'm going to just accept that anomaly for these too.

Unless anyone finds anything seriously broken with this, I'll go ahead and finish KataGo's implementation and start the next official run shortly, supporting these rules (yay). If all goes well, in few weeks we should have some very strong new KataGo nets.
------------------
Amendments (in bold)
------------------

A pseudolegal move consists of a player performing the following:
  • Coloring an empty point with the player's color.
  • Then resolving captures of the opponent's color.
  • Then resolving captures of the player's color.
...
...
For any regions emptied by the steps of resolving captures, we say that the move captures those regions.

Cleanup Phase Basics and Definitions
A ko-move for a player in a position is any pseudolegal move M where the opponent would have a pseudolegal move in response, the ko-reply, that would result in exactly the grid coloring prior to M. (Note: It is not hard to prove that any ko-move captures exactly one region, with that region containing exactly one point, the same point that the ko-reply would color.)
In addition to the grid coloring, points on the grid may be marked as ko-recapture-blocked. (Note: this is no longer per-player, since it is implicitly differentiated by the color of the stone being marked)
The state during cleanup phases consists of the grid coloring together with the ko-recapture-blocked status of all points and the color of the player next to take a turn.

Cleanup Phase Play
Cleanup lasts for two phases[6]. In each phase, starting with the grid coloring from the end of the previous phase, the players alternate turns, starting with the opponent of the player who took the last turn of the previous phase. A turn in the cleanup is either a pass, a legal move, or an unblock-ko-recapture action.[7]

...

A legal move by a player during a cleanup phase is any pseudolegal move for that player that either...
  • Is NOT a ko-move.
  • Is a ko-move that both...
    • Does NOT capture a region that contains any point marked as ko-recapture-blocked.
    • AND where that player did NOT on any earlier turn during the same cleanup phase make a legal move on exactly the same point with exactly
      the same grid coloring.
    Then, followed by marking the point colored by that move as ko-recapture-blocked.
Then, followed by unmarking all ko-recapture-blocked points whose grid color is empty.

An unblock-ko-recapture action consists of a player choosing a ko-move for that player that would capture a region containing a point marked as ko-recapture-blocked, and removing that mark (with no changes to the coloring of the grid).


Last edited by lightvector on Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #68 Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:13 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 588
Liked others: 92
Was liked: 669
Rank: maybe 2d
Bill Spight wrote:
Quote:
I like to think that the current draft, despite the flaws, actually does a pretty good job of achieving the above objectives. If someone does see a simple change that would be a clear improvement, that would be great. Otherwise, I'm likely go just go ahead with it (after pondering for a little longer if any simple clear improvements are possible), unless someone comes up with something massively better. :)


I think you are doing a great job! :clap: :clap: :clap: :salute: :salute: :salute:


And thanks, Bill, for the support.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #69 Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:31 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10543
Liked others: 3495
Was liked: 3313
lightvector wrote:
Thanks. Okay, I am going to amend the drafted rules to assign ko-blocks to the stone being recaptured, rather than the empty point of the ko. They will also persist as long as the stone remains on the board. I think the complexity of these rules is almost the same as the earlier draft (slightly simpler in some regards, slightly more wordy in others). It's about as easy to actually code up too.


You may have intended this, but it seems to me that the block on a single ko stone should allow it to captured along with other stones in one move.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

My two main guides in life:
My mother and my wife. :)

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #70 Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:00 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 588
Liked others: 92
Was liked: 669
Rank: maybe 2d
Bill, what do you mean?

In the new formulation posted above, a ko-recapture-blocked stone can be captured without spending a turn to unblock if it is via a move that is not a ko-move. So basically, it only stops capture of that stone in a ko-mouth shape.

Was that what you meant/were remarking on, or do you mean something else?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #71 Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:47 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 304
Liked others: 3
Was liked: 41
Rank: 5 dan
It seems feasible to continue with these rules. Anyway, if a serious problem with these rules is found after some years, it would be a reasonably small task to train the bot under new modified rules.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #72 Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:26 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10543
Liked others: 3495
Was liked: 3313
lightvector wrote:
Bill, what do you mean?

In the new formulation posted above, a ko-recapture-blocked stone can be captured without spending a turn to unblock if it is via a move that is not a ko-move. So basically, it only stops capture of that stone in a ko-mouth shape.

Was that what you meant/were remarking on, or do you mean something else?


That's what I had in mind, thanks. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

My two main guides in life:
My mother and my wife. :)

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #73 Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:23 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 80
Liked others: 19
Was liked: 46
Any plans to support Ing ko rules? ;-)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #74 Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:47 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10543
Liked others: 3495
Was liked: 3313
YeGO wrote:
Any plans to support Ing ko rules? ;-)


Surely you jest.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

My two main guides in life:
My mother and my wife. :)

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #75 Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 7:44 pm 
Dies with sente

Posts: 80
Liked others: 19
Was liked: 46
Yes, just kidding, hence the winking emoji.

However, it would be interesting to see the Ing ko rules formalized for bot play ...

I never managed to understand those rules. Is there a clear article explaining them somewhere online?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #76 Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:55 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 5200
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 719
Ing ko rules explained (of course, they do not become easy):
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/newko.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ingkolec.txt
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ingko_epilogue.pdf

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #77 Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:39 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 304
Liked others: 3
Was liked: 41
Rank: 5 dan
lightvector wrote:
Thanks. Okay, I am going to amend the drafted rules to assign ko-blocks to the stone being recaptured, rather than the empty point of the ko. They will also persist as long as the stone remains on the board. I think the complexity of these rules is almost the same as the earlier draft (slightly simpler in some regards, slightly more wordy in others). It's about as easy to actually code up too.

I think this should get both of Matti's positions correct. It will still show anomalies for *even longer* chains of kos due to assigning a block to only a stone rather than the pair of stones of a ko, but whatever, that's fine. It will also still share the "rules beast" issue in the other thread of position B for J89 rules where a double ko death can be won, but the most "obvious" interpretation of J89 also shares that issue, so I'm going to just accept that anomaly for these too.

Have you already constructed a position with *even longer* chain of kos?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #78 Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 7:52 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 588
Liked others: 92
Was liked: 669
Rank: maybe 2d
Yes.

White group A, Black group B, White group C, all in the middle of the board, no edges needed. A is safe and connected to other stuff, B and C are racing.

A and B share a multi-step-ko chain of arbitrarily long length. B only controls one spot in the chain, and has no outside liberties, so is in atari. B is racing against C, which has 2 outside liberties. If only B could get a free move to not be in atari, it could fill a liberty of C and win the race.

The net effect of the rules being anomalous here is that KataGo will "misevaluate" the position by a single point, thinking that White needs a defense before the end of the main phase. Or rather, it would if the neural net were to see this position frequently enough to learn it - probably this will not be the case and the neural net will be giving evaluations with significant noise/error anyways. And at this point I'm okay for having KataGo make a "mistake" of only 1 point in a position that will almost never happen in exchange for avoiding messy implementation complexity (which assigning a block to pairs of points would do). KataGo will already be making mistakes far more than 1 point in far more common situations.

And I could still always patch this in the future if a simple fix is found.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #79 Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 3:17 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 63
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 16
Rank: 5d
lightvector wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$cB
$$ ----------------------
$$ | X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X O X . X . X O O . .
$$ | O . O X O X O X O . .
$$ | . O O O O O O X O . .
$$ | O O X X X X X X . . .
$$ | X X X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]



Maybe it is too late to jump into this subject, but I just want to make sure you are trying to reproduce the "right" conclusion.

Regarding the "standard molasses ko" shape, I am quite sure if it occurs in a pro match, the game will end with a draw. The logic is simply that one player cannot afford to make a pass if he wants to keep his group (thus the game will never end with two passes, though it is a tricky claim). A few Korean pros who saw this shape agreed with such a conclusion, after a few eyeball rolling. I don't think Korean and Japanese rule will work differently here.

For the above shape, the situation is slightly different. Both Black and White can safely pass at this shape, and the likely conclusion is a local seki.

_________________
Jaeup Kim
Professor in Physics, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
Author of the Book "Understanding the Rules of Baduk", available at http://home.unist.ac.kr/~jukim/index.php?mid=notice&document_srl=752233

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: KataGo planned rules - drafted
Post #80 Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:11 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 63
Liked others: 7
Was liked: 16
Rank: 5d
I love using KataGo and I really feel like to help you. As you can see from my signature, I wrote a book "Understanding the Rules of Baduk". Many questions you have about Go rules are probably already included there, but I regret that I did not finish its translation in English.

lightvector wrote:
For AlphaZero-like self-play training purposes, neural net input/output representation, and compatibility with existing protocols for computer Go playing and game representation (GTP, SGF), I would like a ruleset that:

* Does not include any hypothetical play, branching of the game (i.e. copying the game to determine something) or any rollback of state upon determining the status of a chain, or a ko, or an area of the board. The game and all statuses are determined through alternating actions alone.

* All possible actions in any phase of the game are either a pass or are "naturally" representable as being associated with one or more locations on the board, such that these locations are disjoint between actions on a given turn (implications: any location has at most one possible action associated with it, the maximum number of possible legal actions on a 19x19 board is 362, there are no actions like "communicate a list of group and their proposed statues to be agreed upon" that cannot be naturally be encoded in such a way, etc.).

* Will still produce some result even with fairly badly-behaved players. Such as players that play completely at random, or do not understand when play are necessary or not, or that "mistakenly" take actions that result in the game ending "prematurely". Self-play rules must be able to handle such players.

* Can be efficiently implemented in an actual computer program without too much difficulty. I think the current draft is not too bad on this - only a small number of additional concepts are defined such "state" and "atari" beyond those that a computer implementation would need to implement anyways such as "region", and simple combinations of those concepts are enough to define the most complex concepts like "independent-life-region" without any more layers of definitions. And as for efficiency, everything is computable directly, for example no tree search over move sequences is necessary to implement any of the rules.

* Subject to the above technical requirements/restrictions, still does a reasonable job of matching most common situation results in the Japanese rules so long as the players ARE reasonably-well-behaved and act self-interestedly.


It is a nice summary of your objective. I mostly agree with you that a rule (for both human and AI) must seek for such goals, and actually the above sentences can be a good summary of Ch. 5 of my book.

lightvector wrote:

For most area-scoring rulesets, it is not hard to come up with a version that satisfies all the above technical requirements, in fact many of them pretty much do already


Now it is difficult for me to agree with this. Maybe you think some rulesets adopting superko rules (T-T, AGA, NZ or whatever) can achieve this, but I've yet to see a superko-adopting rule that does not have an anomaly. Ch. 10 of my book is devoted to explain all the anomalies of superko rules.

Ch. 12 of the book introduces a new ruleset which is pretty much a reproduction of the current Chinese ruleset. (I feel like to say that by applying this ruleset, the result of the game will match with the intention of the current Chinese rule.) The rule text is at this link.
http://home.unist.ac.kr/~jukim/?module= ... 1a9b1ec6f1

Even though it is basically an area scoring rule, if you are looking for a ruleset that results in draws for triple and quadruple kos and prevents trolling (such as sending-two-returning-one, repeatedly touching double ko seki, not giving up separated moonshine life, etc.) maybe it is worth reading. Unfortunately, the commentary of the ruleset is yet to be translated, and without the whole book in English, it won't be easy for you to understand how the rule can really survive all possible attacks. If you have specific questions, I can at least answer them.

The ruleset introduces some unfamiliar concepts, but you are a programmer and you will quickly realize that its programming is actually quite easy because all you need to do is to write down a few if, then, else sentences. (There is no implicit statement such as "resolve the situation".) Probably the only drawback is the introduction of two different passes, one for the ko capture and one for the game ending. (The situation will be worse for you because you are seeking for a territory scoring rule, and the game is played through multiple phases.) I tried really hard to see if I can make a ruleset with only one type of pass, but my temporarily conclusion is No. To defend a game from all wicked trolls, two different passes are probably inevitable.

_________________
Jaeup Kim
Professor in Physics, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
Author of the Book "Understanding the Rules of Baduk", available at http://home.unist.ac.kr/~jukim/index.php?mid=notice&document_srl=752233

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group