Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 04:37:25 02/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2002 at 10:11:54, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On February 13, 2002 at 19:31:12, Angrim wrote: > >>On February 13, 2002 at 11:06:12, Edward Seid wrote: >> >>>This is a general question for chess programmers. >>> >>>Have you ever tried programming a Go engine? Or do you even have an interest or >>>understanding of the game of Go? >>> >>>Just curious. >> >>I became interested in the game of Go a while ago based purely >>on the fact that people said it was extremely hard for a computer >>to play. After reading all that I could find about the rules of >>GO, I decided that the real problem with it is that the sort >>of people who write chess computers find the rules of GO too >>vague and inconsistant and so most of them avoid it. >> >>Three things that I wanted from the rules that I was not >>satified with: >>1. I want to be able to find a unique set of moves in any position >>such that the moves are legal. The set of legal moves seems to change >>from one country to the next, and even from one tournament to the next. >>2. I want to be able to determine when the game is over. >>As stated elsewhere in this thread, the game of GO is over when >>both players agree that it is over, a condition that is hard to >>detect in the search tree ;) >>This one is actually not a huge problem, since the comp can just keep >>playing and pass when it thinks that all legal moves would be >>worse than no move, and at some point the opponent will also pass >>which ends the game. >>3. once the game is over, it would be nice to have an algorithm that >>could determine who has won. Most of the heuristics I have seen for >>this either say "the experienced player will know" or involve the >>players taking turns moveing stones around. > >I already talked with you on FICS about this, but I'll mention it >here again for the other CCC'ers: > >There is a ruleset for Go called the Tromp-Taylor rules. It's both >extremely short and still complete, and doesn't have any of the >ambuigities the traditional human rules have. > >It's also close enough to the human game that a program that is strong >by TT rules will also be strong with the more common human rules. > >It's been my impression that this ruleset would be the required >'minimum supported rules' for the GTP (Winboard II equivalent for >Go programs), so it looks like _the_ pick if you're going to develop >a program. > >-- >GCP This is very interesting. Thanks, GCP. Andrew
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.