Speaking of laziness, I have been intending to post a study
concerning capturing races, but I haven't gotten around to it.
So is it surprising that MC is lazy, given that MC programmers
are lazy? :-)
Ingo's Double Step Race is a simplified model of capturing race.
My model was more complex, and I solved it recursively rather
than via simulations.
I promise a full post at some point. For now, here are the
overall conclusions:
1) It is possible to be an outright underdog in a race
played out by an MC process even if you win by force under
alternating play.
2) The longer the race, the closer to even it appears, even
if it is lopsided in alternating play (e.g., 4 moves vs 7).
3) If a position features multiple races, then the chance
that MC will play all correctly is very small.
Please consider "race" here in a general sense: you must reach
your goal before the opponent reaches his goal, where the goals
are incompatible. Semeai is a special case.
My conclusion is the same as Gian-Carlo Pascutto's: I am convinced
that the phenomenon of laziness is real, and that it hurts
practical strength.
To this I would add that laziness is not just a problem in
handicap games. We need to elevate the discussion about laziness
beyond the question of how to win when given 7 stones. I could
not care less. The problem is that we need so many stones.
This comes down to the difference between alternating play and
random play. It is fundamental to the whole framework that MC
will give high scores to positions that are favorable in alternating
play. Unfortunately, there are many dead losing situations that have
a reasonable chance of working in random play.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
