> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 18:07 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote: > > When the playouts evaluate a critical semeai the wrong way, then no > > supercomputer can help, even at long time control. Semeais require a > > better algorithm, because no computing power can search them out with > > a > > tree, and playouts have to be extremely intelligent in order to > > evaluate > > them correctly.
Has anyone tried implementing the ideas in Richard Hunter's "Counting Liberties" in a manner which can be used to guide the playouts? Analysis should be able to determine the outcome of a semeai, and use that information to protect its lead with minimal expenditure, or conversely to exploit the threat of resurrection to improve some other aspect of the board. By the middle game, humans will partition the board into areas with little or no interaction. Group A cannot be killed if the owner reacts appropriately to threats; group B cannot be defended, if the opponent plays correctly; group C is alive, if group D is killed. Humans know about nakade and ko, and exploit their knowledge to do efficient local tree search, and use that local knowledge to guide the global search for the best move. Even in the opening, humans have a sense whether a pair of stones have enough room to expand and make two eyes, or whether they're cramped for space. 19x19 differs from 9x9 in that it can be more readily partitioned; in smaller boards, everything often closely interacts with everything else. http://senseis.xmp.net/?CountingLibertiesAndWinningCapturingRaces Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Go is very hard. The more I learn about it, the less I know." -Jie Li, 9 dan _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
