Oops! I did not reply to the list before ....
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gtp] boardsize and clear_board Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:43:12 +0200 From: Joan Pons Semelis SEMELIS@terra.es To: Chris Spencer ckspencer@verizon.net References: 200507171946.j6HJkVKC003953@koeberg.lysator.liu.se 42DABE96.4050507@verizon.net
Chris Spencer wrote:
Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
The reason to introduce clear_board was that it seemed silly to be clearing the board as a side effect of setting the boardsize. It would have been an option to still require boardsize to also clear the board but I thought it made more sense to have those commands orthogonal. In part this is also a symmetry with not requiring the board to be empty at startup, which is useful when you can specify an initial position externally (in the case of GNU Go as a command line option).
Only the only problem I see with this rationale is that I can't think of a situation where I would resize the board without clearing it. Resizing the board without clearing results in a board with an essentially meaningless piece arraignment. Is there really a useful case where you would resize the board but wish to save the positions that weren't truncated as a result of the resizing?
Yes: setting up a joseki of the type territory versus influence and cheking again different sizes and rest of the board positions to see how the influence side of the joseki works. You can do this to a limited extend even in sgf format, and I use this feature from time to time.
I agree that it's intuitive to have a clear_board command. However, not clearing the board after a resize seems unintuitive to me.
Sincerely, Chris Spencer
gtp mailing list gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/gtp
On Monday 18 July 2005 07:55, Joan Pons Semelis wrote:
Yes: setting up a joseki of the type territory versus influence and cheking again different sizes and rest of the board positions to see how the influence side of the joseki works. You can do this to a limited extend even in sgf format, and I use this feature from time to time.
that is a use-case I haven't thought of. But you are relying on implementation dependent behaviour of your engine, so it would be cleaner to use a private extension command
- Markus
Markus Enzenberger wrote:
On Monday 18 July 2005 07:55, Joan Pons Semelis wrote:
Yes: setting up a joseki of the type territory versus influence and cheking again different sizes and rest of the board positions to see how the influence side of the joseki works. You can do this to a limited extend even in sgf format, and I use this feature from time to time.
that is a use-case I haven't thought of. But you are relying on implementation dependent behaviour of your engine, so it would be cleaner to use a private extension command
I'm well aware that this is not portable, but a private command would not be portable neither, and I don't find it so necessary as to advocate for a standard command as a portable clean resize and reload of the basic position is not that bad. Others may have found an "undefined" state more suited to their engines, so I think it's OK as it is.
If I want something portable I can not use an undefined board, so I would always need to clear it first before using it, so why allow for undefined states if not for private use ?
- Markus
gtp mailing list gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/gtp
-
Joan Pons Semelis -
Markus Enzenberger