Proposal for a Simple Ruleset

Well that’s a problem because you don’t rely on yourself anymore but on an external help, the AI. Even if, as in your first proposal it results in a lose/lose situation in the case the luck is on your side, i prefer the honesty of a resign.

1 Like

So in this position, if both players pass, then both lose? That would be counter-intuitive for most DDKs.

7 Likes

It is not intuitive until the AI will show the seki.

But maybe both then will feel a bit unfair that black didn’t get the win (as they both missed it and agreed on a black victory )

4 Likes

I like this example! It’s way more subtle than the obvious open cuts in the other thread. :slight_smile:

But yes, if you leave a way for your opponent to seki your corner, even if your opponent is too weak to find it, you have failed to prove that you are able to clearly beat them. I would advise black to take it as a valuable learning experience.

This example is an extreme outlier, obviously, and one can make an argument that the board should be scored “as finished” if it “looks finished”.

1 Like

Well that was a main argument in the topics earlier.
We can oppose a rational argument now (like for truth, or teaching goals, progress) but you know we have different public

1 Like

In a game with 6.5 Komi, assume that the AI scores the game as “W + 0.1”, what would be the result?

1 Like

I’ m not sure if we should care of the ruleset too as white has 1 point in the seki (an eye) in chinese rule. I was going to forget that black has one too.
There are no prisoners (if using the japanese rule) because same numbers of stones.
In aga rule black pass before white play for seki which will result in 1 black prisoner

The proposal involves two judgements, one with black to move and one with white to move.

If the same color wins in both judgements, that color is declared winner.
If black wins on black to move and white wins on white to move, even if just by 0.1 points, that would be the “both lose” situation.

This would be a close endgame situation where both forget to take the last decisive point.

1 Like

right so assume the two results are:

white to move → w + 4.2
black to move → b + 0.1

will it be a loss for both? I’m asking because I know that AI evaluation is not always 100% conclusive (otherwise values like 0.1 would not be possible), so if the AI estimation is close to 0, its output value can very well be on the wrong side compared to the “theoretical optimal play result”.

1 Like

As you say, in principle, the AI can misjudge.

However, modern bots are rarely more than 0.5 points off on a finished board. It would take some quite extreme position where a bot like KataGo gives white -0.6 for not playing dame. :slight_smile:

Yes but (if I understand correctly) the system you are proposing needs to be able to score any position, not just finished positions.

1 Like

I think by very late endgame, and the end whereby the ai wants to pass (no dame to fill etc) I imagine one could probably come up with a rule like “round to the nearest half odd integer” if using komi x+0.5 with x and integer.

Like W+0.1 and similarly small amounts might round to W+0.5 and B+1.2 would round to B+1.5 etc.

I think the numbers like W+0.1 are simply due to the fact that the ai is trying to fit a function, by the end of the game it’s really simply a scoring function that takes in a board position and counts the points, except that isn’t what the Ai was trained to do. Instead it needs to predict with some certainty the outcome, from most of the time unfinished positions. So the uncertainty and lack of perfect approximation leads to numbers (score estimates) which can’t be real on the board + komi scores.

In fact, humans also do this with unfinished positions in endgame, assigning fractional points to the size of moves (not just half integers, but 1/4, 1/8 etc) but more bizarrely infinitesimals which again need to be rounded in some way to figure out which player wins and by how much.

Anyway, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest a simplified mode, or a new rule set which auto scores. I mean we more or less have that with bot games right? I guess one needs to pick a rule set to base it off like New Zealand, Chinese, Japanese etc (area vs territory). One maybe could use a modified scoring algorithm based on a bot like Katago, such as what Vsotvep was suggesting

It is an interesting idea to apply autoscoring to things like ladders and tournaments (the both lose in particular).

Whether people would be happy with both lose scenarios I’m not so sure. So whether it would be popular outside of games where it was forced (suggested ladder etc) I also don’t know.

2 Likes

It can handle any case gracefully in the sense that there is an easy to understand resolution to every user action, no matter how misinformed.

Nothing changes about the fact that the game needs to be finished for proper scoring.

My proposal offers the proper incentives for that.

Calling the game early still depends on your opponent to agree, and even if they do, it will probably result in “both lose” unless the position is overwhelming.

This adresses the problem cases from the first post.

No, white failed to gain something in the corner against black, while black failed to win this position against the AI.
Sure, we could introduce the rule “The winner is who can prove, that they can clearly beat their opponent”, but I assume the use of the word “clearly” would not help the goal to achieve a simple ruleset.

This example is the only example in this thread. Calling it an “extreme outlier, obviously” seems harsh.
And when both players pass, aren’t they saying, that the board “looks finished”?.

1 Like

You’re right. We cannot expect everyone to follow all the current threads. So, with apologies to @Vsotvep , I’m stealing this from Autoscore is still overriding players’ skill level:

This is the kind of thing we are taking about.

Maybe… Or they just don’t know what else to do.

Yeah, but I set up this board positions specifically to be problematic for scoring, it’s not a real game.

Especially when playing against bots it automatically scores with a bot that makes some inaccurate decisions before i got unfair wins and loses against bots so that would be better for bots

If a bot were to judge the result without human intervention then chinese rules make the most sense. That way there is no need to “trust” the bot as you can play umpteen redundant defense moves to make sure your territory is scored as yours. Losing games because a superhuman bot can play perfectly is not interesting nor fun to us casual kyus. The mobile app GoQuest implements this and it works well.

2 Likes

No, two passes don’t mean neither player wants to play. There are cases where the first player passes because of a (momentary) ko ban, the second player passes (for whatever reason), and then the first player wants to recapture the ko.

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.