This is a good example of a reasonable heuristic leading to an
undesired solution after a correct evaluation. Most of the time
SlugGo did this it was correct that stopping the opponent's
monkey-jump was the biggest move on the board, so using
the heuristic was valuable. It just took things too far and chose
the exact same move for the fix.
We had to "soften" the heuristic to "Moves near their best move
may be very good for me." Playing with the weights for "near"
cut down on the number of reverse monkey jumps.
Cheers,
David
On 3, Dec 2006, at 5:17 AM, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Le mercredi 22 novembre 2006 20:44, Rémi Coulom a écrit :
Hi,
I am in search of Go positions that are easy to understand for
humans,
and difficult for computers.
Hi
Maybe too late ... Nethertheless, i remember a funny thing.
Some time ago i implemented "opponent good move is good for me" in
a GNU Go bot
and this gave funny things like "reverse monkey jump".
David Doshay reported this too with early SlugGo (which also takes
into
account opponent good moves)
........
XXXOOOOO
..XO....
..X.....
.....a.. Instead of blocking the monkey jump, O plays in a :)
--------
I m pretty sure no human player would think of this.
Alain
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
