Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 08:01:27PM +0200, Berk Ozbozkurt wrote:
I think such a change may make engine objectively stronger while making
it more vulnerable against humans. Even if the human opponent isn't
aware of the move pruning logic initially, it wouldn't take a lot of
games to figure out that the computer never makes a move away from the
last move to the center or to the sides.
So sorry, but I think you have misunderstoodthe rule being tested here. It
has nothing to do with the last move played, it is all about *not* playing to
a point that is more than 3 (or 2) poitns away from any stone on the board,
*or* that is on the 3th 4th, or the 5th row from the edge.
This still leaves open a possibility of setting up two ladders, so that a
ladder break somewhere in the center would be the right move. But even then,
the random nature of the MC playouts would make such a position look pretty
bad, and direct the program away from it - which would most often be good
playing style anyway.
My real mistake was thinking this was a tree searching engine. My all
points are moot as this was only ref-bot doing AMAF.
Assume, for argument's sake, the rule is implemented in a searching go
engine and moves not conforming to the rule are hard pruned during
search. It doesn't matter whether 2 points from any stone or just last
move is considered. In many openings neither side would have any stones
near the center, so no moves to the center would be considered by the
engine, for at least a few more branches down the tree. Note that, it is
the human opponent, who makes losing ladders with the intention of
putting a ladder breaker in the center. As the program is oblivious to
the fact that only one ladder may be won by it, the program will
evaluate its position *highly* and tend to continue ladders as long as
human continues playing them.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
