I avoided using the title "God" because I wanted to avoid issues such as god looking into your brain and playing in such as way as to befuddle the opponent or specially playing against your weaknesses or changing the laws of physics in order to win a game.
So to keep it simple I am imagining an infinite speed computer with no special programming other than a brute force approach to omniscience! And such a computer is not calculating risk and such and doesn't know or care about the opponent and his foibles. My primary point is that playing to win as many points on the board is also a winning strategy, but trying to win the game is not a good strategy for winning as many points on the board as possible. But if such a powerful machine were available there would be no need to program the "win game" strategy, we could just program the "win points" strategy and get both all rolled up into one. - Don On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote: > Don Dailey wrote: > >> In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is "good enough." >> > > If God is set to play any randomly chosen winning move, yes. > > > Since it is omnicient there is no point in talking about risk, or chances >> in any context. >> > > For a simple definition of God applied to a single game, yes. For an entity > in strength between God and Devil (who knows also the opponent's strategy in > hindsight), possibly no. For God without hindsight during a tournament, no. > For Devil in a single game or Devil with tournament hindsight, yes. > > > > In a lost game it would play a move at random. > > Why random? > > > In maximize score mode it would choose the move that maximizes the total >> points taken on the board. It would be the perfect Hahn system player >> > > for instance. > > Wrong, since Hahn system has an upper score rewarding boundary. (The thing > that punishes me for having taken a "too great" risk when killing 70 stones > groups.) > > > > What I cannot decide is if it is really more > >> challenging - I just know it's more challenging to do it perfectly. >> > > More challenging for whom? For God, it is equally boring. > > > -- > robert jasiek > _______________________________________________ > 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/
