>> Any estimate of winning probability is only as good as the estimates of >> whether particular games are actually won or lost. >> >> Evidently, even strong programs fail to recognize the impact of nakade, > > MC programs don't even have any concept of nakade. Nevertheless, the > best of them are stronger than programs that do.
Just replying to this point, not the main theme of the thread, but there are two things here: 1. Random playout MC/UCT programs have no concept of nakade. But they don't have the nakade weakness either. They are bad players, but pure. 2. Mogo (and CrazyStone) are using lots of intelligence in their playouts, and that is the cause of the nakade weakness. They are good players, but they have preconceptions. They consider the moves required to discover the difference between a nakade and dead-stones-in-a-definitely-alive-group as low priority. So, in that sense, they do have a concept of nakade. (I hope Remi, or one of the Mogo developers, will correct me if I've misunderstood what is going on.) Darren -- Darren Cook http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese free dictionary) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://dcook.org/work/charts/ (My flash charting demos) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
