On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 10:04 -0700, Brian Slesinsky wrote: > On 7/10/07, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > When you favor defense (or attack) you may think: "This is unbiased > > since some times it favors black and other times it favors white" But > > the fact is when black is in danger at the root of the tree, it is in > > danger in most of the tree, therefore the trick gets the evaluation wrong. > > Well, this is subtle enough that I don't understand it. What are two > positions that it would compare incorrectly?
It's common in games that the winning side must play accurately, or else it's a loss. Here is a very trivial example. Suppose WHITE should win the game, but to do so must make 1 critical atari move that cannot be defended. But suppose the play-out logic is very unbalanced, good at defending, poor at attacking. In such a case, WHITE (in the play-out) may fail to make the important atari move. Since the play-out logic is good at defending, BLACK has been granted an important reprieve from execution and now will win the game after making the proper defensive move (which it is good at.) This play-out logic would consistently favor the losing side and therefore be worse than random play. Random play would be better because the attacker might have another shot at stumbling on the right move. - Don > - Brian > _______________________________________________ > 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/
