On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Benjamin Teuber <benjamin.teu...@web.de>wrote:
> Hi, > > I would like to know what exact experiments with "virtual komi" have > been made and why thay failed. To me, this idea seems very natural, as > it encodes the confidence of the stronger player that the weaker one > will eventually make more mistakes on his own. You don't need to catch > up a fourty-point handicap at once and try to kill all - instead you > just overplay a little in order to catch up slowly but steadily. You just hit the nail on the head. Dynamic komi does not encourage a program to overplay the position. Since you are starting from a losing position you HAVE to overplay a bit. You have to attack when it is futile. Dynamic komi just makes the program happy with less. That is NOT a good algorithm for winning against fallible opponents when you are behind. It' s NOT a natural algorithm and I don't believe it's what humans do either. Dynamic komi doesn't tell the program that you should fight for something that you probably cannot win - which is what you have to do in handicap play. It just tells the program that it's ok not to fight and play as if everything is fine. What I'm suggesting is not to ignore the problem but to find some other technique that actually addresses the true problem. > > If you're behind by 5 points after move 100 against a player who is > five stones weaker than you, you can almost consider it a sure win. If > you're behind by the same amount, but when the last endgame moves are > being played, it's a safe loss. This all is encoded very naturally by > a decreasing virtual komi. > > So why exactly shouldn't it work? > > Cheers, Benjamin > _______________________________________________ > 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/
