I don't think such positions are enough to evaluate "total" performance of a program. Because they don't include middle games nor opening games, for examples.
-Hideki terry mcintyre: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >Hideki Kato wrote: > >> What is "correct" move? It has sense only for some artificial >> problems or very limited positions, and so, it cannot evaluate total >> performance of a program. > > >There are many positions where winning the game requires one or a small set of >moves. >Suppose the board is equally divided, and all groups are settled but one. The >last group >will live or die, depending on whether the program makes the single correct >move or not. > >Many life-and-death program can be converted to this form. > >An alternative approach would be to take a traditional life-and-death problem, >and assign >a komi such that the problem must be solved to win the game. > >A third approach might be to devise a UCT framework which can be given >specific goals, >such as "kill this group" or "live", or "select a move from this subset", >which otherwise uses >the same algorithms for whole-board play. > >Given a large set of life-and-death problems which have been converted into >whole-board >problems, >I believe that any UCT program which handles the life-and-death problems >correctly would >probably >do quite well in whole-board play also. The knowledge should generalize well. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ >Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >---- inline file >_______________________________________________ >computer-go mailing list >computer-go@computer-go.org >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
