On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Nick Wedd <n...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com>, > Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com> writes > > >> >> 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? >> >> I don't understand the question. If all moves lose, how would YOU >> select? >> >> Did you get the point that I'm defining 2 separate strategies? One >> is to maximize the points on the board and the other is to not make any >> distinction whatsoever between moves except whether they win or lose >> the game. >> >> And I'm trying to make the point that maximizing the points on the >> board is a superior strategy because it is a super-set of the strategy >> to be only concerned with winning. >> > > "Superior" in what sense? Your bang neki strategy is superior if you are > playing bang neki, and inferior if you are playing Go. The Go strategy > employed by MC-UCT programs is superior for playing Go and inferior for bang > neki. I don't know what bang neki means but it's superior against fallible opponent, but against perfect opponent it's not inferior. You can argue that it's not superior agianst perfect opponents and I would agree, but it's not inferior either. In other words it's greater than or equal to playing for the win if you are god. If you are NOT god, then it's "easier" to play for the win because there is simply less to think about. You only distiguish between wins and losses and not the magnitude of them, which is a simplification for us mere mortals. In chess, it is said that WHITE has an advantage, but that is probably only true for falliable players, since it's probably a draw from gods point of view. But for us it's easy to win when we have the white pieces. > > > Let's call this strategy A and strategy B. Strategy A is to maximize >> the points on the board and strategy B is to only distinguish winning >> moves. If you play strategy A, then a strategy B player would see >> those moves as a perfectly valid B strategy. But a strategy A >> player would frown on many of the moves a strategy B player would play. >> > > Are you assuming that the players can examine the entire game tree? Yes. I'm saying that strategy A is >= strategy B if you are God (it will not help against another God but it won't hurt either. But it will help you win against a mortal, therefore I say A >= B) If you are NOT god, then strategy B apparently is better. It's better for computers for sure. > If you are, I do not understand your paragraph above, the whole issue seems > undefined. But if you assume that they (like me) cannot read everything out > with certainty, I disagree with your conclusion. I think you actually agree with me. Strategy A is >= B if you are God, otherwise strategy B appears to be best. > Indeed, I often see players using strategy A in a poor position, by trying > to play out the yose well, when I can see that their only hope of winning > the game is to start a messy fight (which none of us knows who will win). I > do not consider their strategy A as "perfectly valid". > If you are fallible, I agree that strategy B is best. Strategy A is just as good for winning as strategy B but only if you are God. However, if you ARE god, then strategy A is better than strategy B against fallible players and against another God player it doesn't matter. I think this has been confusing because there are too many frames of reference here and I probably didn't explain it very well. I really only set out to explain why I think the Hahn tournaments may be harder to play after all because it seems to require strategy A, which is harder for fallible players to do as well. (Humans and computers have not mastered either strategy of course but I think strategy B is easier to handle.) > > Nick > > > 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/ >> > > -- > Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk > _______________________________________________ > 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/
