Christoph Birk wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: >> What you are trying to do is more in the category of opponent >> modeling. You want to optimize for the case that you might >> occasionally salvage a game against an opponent that is much weaker than >> you but is beating you anyway. > > No, absolutely not. The idea of following the 0.5 pt loss is always > true, even if the opponent is of comparable strength. > >> strength level. If your program KNOWS it is losing by 0.5 points, then >> it's reasonable to expect that your opponent does too, especially given >> the fact that he just outplayed you. > > I think you are too much of "chess player" :-) > The fact that he is 0.5 point in the lead does not imply he is > (much) stronger. I didn't say that. My point is that if he is beating you then he is not likely to be a lot weaker than you, and so he is probably just as aware as you are about the score and thus you can't assume he is likely to make an error. Therefore this algorithm would have it's best chance of working with an opponent that really is much weaker, however it's not likely you would be in this situation against a much weaker opponent. So you are designing an algorithm that might help you in a case that is not very likely to happen.
> Any player, in particular a human player, is capable > of the making a mistake. So it is important to stay on the 'small' > losing line. That might a difference to chess, where there is no > 'small' loss. I guess we disagree on how important this is. To me it's only important as a tie-break, if all else is equal. My feeling is that it more important to find the line that gives you the best winning chances and I would only resort to some other method if the score was zero (or so close to it that it was statistically insignificant.) The alternative you are proposing is to systematically distrust the programs calculation. Near the part of the game where the score is going to zero as the program loses, often there is are 1 or 2 lines of play that show an occasional win, even though the vast majority of play-outs show a loss. But most lines of play lose in EVERY SINGLE play-out. I could care less that it doesn't lose big because if a random player can beat me with it then why should I expect that my opponent cannot handle it? Wouldn't it be better to choose a line that was at least good enough that random play was not enough to guarantee the win? - Don > >> So at best you hope your opponent will make a stupid mistake in an >> obviously lost position for you. > > No, the opposite. Not a stupid mistake; I am hoping for the subtle > mistake. But you throw that opportunity away If you play "desparate" > moves just because you think you will lose the game by 0.5 points. > >> There is nothing wrong with this, if it's what you want to lose sleep >> over, but how much do you expect to gain from it? I see people >> getting excited about this idea as if it's the holy grail of computer go >> and will add 50 ELO or more. > > Nobody called this the "holy grail" ... but I agree with you that > there are bigger problems in computer Go ... > > Christoph > _______________________________________________ > 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/
