Christoph Birk wrote: > > On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Don Dailey wrote: >> >> >> Christoph Birk wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Mark Boon wrote: >>>> I don't know about this. I'm pretty sure MoGo checks if the stone can >>>> make at least two liberties (ladder problem) in which case it can >>>> still be horrible but very seldomly worse than random. >>> >>> I would expect playing a "not-working" ladder to be worse than random >>> most >>> of the time. >> Of course this is true, but presumably a move that answers a direct >> atari threat would classify as being better than random. > > Not if it's a working ladder. That's what I'm saying Christoph. When it's a ladder and the defender cannot succeed then I responded "Of course this is true."
In all other cases, the odds are very strong that the move is much better than random. Something else not caught well in patterns and clever logic for playouts is that winning probability gets confused with good local moves and so too much of a good thing may be counter-productive. You could be blind-siding the program. This could be more of an issue than we think. - Don > > 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/
