In my case, yes. That is a correct interpretation for the context codes in my program, which are equivalent to some of the suggestions for the meaning of "1x1 pattern." (But I don't call them "1x1 patterns."?I also find that term confusing. I don't remember seeing it before.)
- Dave Hillis -----Original Message----- From: Peter Drake <dr...@lclark.edu> To: computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> Sent: Mon, Jun 22, 2009 4:21 pm Subject: Re: [computer-go] 1x1 patterns?! On Jun 22, 2009, at 1:18 PM, dhillism...@netscape.net wrote: Yes. I think it's a good idea, but the devil is in the details. I've become pretty disenchanted with trying to use 3x3 or 5x5 patterns. Currently, I have about 300 1x1 patterns (I call them context codes) that I'm playing around with. So, at the risk of sounding pedantic, these patterns aren't REALLY 1x1 -- they take into account other information, such as the number of liberties a stone has. (Is this a correct interpretation?) Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ = _______________________________________________ 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/
