Well, "vastly" when k is small.
The only way to find a good Komi would be testing and guesstimating.
I think MCTS would be well suited to this variant because you still have the
problem of difficulty in finding a good evaluation function and MCTS solves
that.
Computers would probably be stronger than humans for sufficiently small values of k. With the small branching factor, the computer would be able to build a
very deep tree.
Michael Williams wrote:
I think computers would be much better at this game (than they are at
Go) because you have vastly reduced the branching factor of the game.
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
Hello,
one of the basic problems of go newbies
is their tendency to place the next stone near to the latest stone of
the opponent.
Sometimes this is called the "2-inch heuristic
of beginners".
What do you think about a formalized variant
of Go with one-sided distance-k rule?
Let k be some natural number.
The normal rules of Go hold, except for one thing:
When possible, White has to place his next stone
within distance k (in city-block metric) of the latest
stone of Black. If there is no feasible move of this type
the stone has to be placed within the smallest
possible city-block distance of the latest stone of
Black. White may pass at any time. Example:
On 19x19 board k=36 would mean no restriction at all.)
* What should be fair values of komi(k) or fair numbers
of handicap stones?
* Main question: How strong would MCTS-based programs be in this
variant(s)?
* Would computers be stronger than humans for certain values of k?
Ingo.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
