yes, and the fact that turning a dumpling into a dead group can take more than a few moves, since you may have to fill up the eyespace several times, meaning going fairly deeply down branches with several self-ataris along the way.
s. On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > You won't find that in computer vs computer games, because "tricking" the > > strong programs requires some go skill and it only works if you wait long > > enough before you "solve" the position. But if you search KGS (LeelaBot, > > CrazyStone, CzechBot) for even games where the bot lost against a kyu > > players you will find many. All go more or less like that: > > > > A 4-6 kyu human is behind by 10-15 points in the midgame (at that > > stage the > > probability of winning is correlated with territory, so the MC bot is > > building fine.) He creates a 12-16 point worth nakade trick in a corner > > and does not solve it.The bot is happy, it thinks a bulk five is alive or > > something like that. Perhaps the human sacrificed another 15 points > > somewhere to create the trick so he should be dead lost. But, he only > > has to play on, reduce, etc. As the endgame approaches, the MC bot > > allows the reduction only until the territorial balance would change the > > winner. The player is happy, he turned a 25 points loss into a 1.5 point > > loss (assumed by the program) and has a 12 point surprise. > > At the end, when the whole board is decided, the player kills > > the bot's group and the bot turns a sure win into a sure loss and > > resigns. > > > > Because the trick can only be played by similar strength players (much > > weaker players can't build something like that, much stronger don't > > need it) > > it affects the rating of the bots. I guess CrazyStone could be near > > KGS 1dan > > with that solved. It is 2k now. But, of course, the solution may not > > come at > > the price of making the program weaker. That is the difficult part. > > I want to make sure I understand the nakade problem, please correct me > if I am wrong: > > My understanding of this is that many program do not allow self-atari > moves in the play-outs because in general the overwhelming majority are > stupid moves. Is that what is causing the nakade problem? And if > you start including self-atari you weaken the program in general? > > And can I assume the tree portion is also inhibited from seeing this due > to a combination of factors such as heuristics to delay exploring "ugly" > moves as well as the weakness of the play-outs in this regard (which > would cause the tree to not be inclined to get close enough to the issue > to understand it properly?) > > - Don > > > > > > > > > > > Jacques. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
