Here’s a few games. Both players did not resume the game in each case (e.g., they just left), and it’s now up to you, the auto-score algorithm, to decide who wins the game.
Feel free to comment below if you want to explain your answer, but keep in mind that you’re a bot: be consequent, and know that in practice you can’t explain your answer, or give nuance.
[edit: I’ve included sgfs, and uploaded them to ogs, see the links below the pictures.]
Where would you draw the line if you want to award points for an unclosed area? How many gaps would you allow and how big can those gaps be, before you award no points for an unclosed area?
Anything not alive yet is dead? Or anything not killed is alive? How would a bot think then there are two killable groups by W and B can only save one?
When both players pass, they should mark what’s dead. If they agree on that, it’s dead, regardless of what a spectator, stronger player or AI might think.
Only if they disagree, it might become complicated.
So in the poll, we’re missing which stones were marked dead by the players. If that is left to autoscore and the game is incomplete, the autoscore algorithm needs to be quite smart and almost be able to read the minds of the players.
When i open game 2 the diagram shows the upper right like a seki (which is obviously not )
Is that a bug ? I guess It’s related to the missing move P 16.
I don’t really understand the sgfs for other games, what are they showing, the scoring?
As autoscore i should’nt play at the place of the players to finish the boundary, decide if there is a move to add or not and determine what is alive dead… So the only reasonable decision, if there is no way to have the players resume playing, is to annul all (or to refuse scoring at least )
What about normal dame points, they generally aren’t filled by players. How do you find the difference between a hole in the territory and harmless unfilled dame?
And what about the last two games? Presumably the players didn’t think that the game was unsettled in either case.
This is why i recommend the marking of the boundaries by the players. Then there is an agreement. Without marking you give the power to the AI to play for you whatever happen.
For the dame it’s the same and i have the reverse impression that players tend to play them more and more. At least It’s no more a sign of disrespect and my guess is It’s because of the emergence of the Chinese rule and the bots.
But why not? It’s simple to understand, simple to implement, and encourages proper play. People might argue that it scores incomplete games “incorrectly”, but if the game is incomplete then what do you expect!? Provided people, as a minimum, close borders, and agree on dead stones, dame and teire, then it works fine. Since all those things are part of the game, then I can’t see what the objection is.
Using 2003 Japanese rules as written results in whole board seki in most cases.
Game 1: The only group not in Seki (not possessing dame) is the black top left group.
Game 2: 3 black groups are not in Seki, again white has no territory at all.
Game 3: Probably no territory at all => score=komi (+captures)
(For Tromp-Taylor rules => no stone removal phase. )
I’m too lazy to count my own games, leave alone theoretical exercises where the goal isn’t clear.
I feel like the question is missing some few statements. For instance: do you want a smart or a dumb bot?
Maybe that’s actually the question, as emerged in another thread.
Do you mean pass + pass + just leave?
Well, my opinion is that if they don’t care scoring, then they don’t deserve score: game annulled.
This actually isn’t “a bot”. It’s a simple rule in the UI: players have to close borders, mark dead stones and agree on the result. If they don’t, then the game is annulled.
I don’t know the details, but how about using an algorithm inspired by this? Something like the following:
For every intersection, calculate a weighed sum over all other non-empty intersections, with the weight being 1 / d ^ 2 , where d is the distance, and taking different sign depending on colour.
Once this weighed sum is calculated for all intersections, if the result is too close to zero it counts as neutral point, and otherwise as territory for the respective side.
Definetely not a rigorous scoring algorithm but could be a fun idea to play around with.
