On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 16:11, Nick Wedd <n...@maproom.co.uk> wrote: > Suppose my attempts to read the game tell me "If I seal off my territory at > A, I will win by 5 points. If instead I invade at B, then 70% of the time I > will win by 25 points, 30% of the time I will lose by 5 points". > > If I am playing Go, I will prefer A. If I am playing bang neki, I will > prefer B.
I think opponent modeling should not be ignored or abstracted away. The bot can estimate the probabilities for A and B, assuming an equal strength opponent. But then there is an extra step. With confidence X, the opponent is so much weaker or stronger, in which case the probabilities would be different. If the opponent has been playing random-looking moves, the smart estimate of the probabilities will be different than if it has been playing strong moves and pulling ahead. It's interesting to consider the problem of writing an agent to make side bets. There could be a pool of spectator bot, each calculating an estimate of the final score, after every move, and placing wagers. Suppose we were to hold a tournament to test out some of these theories. For CGOS, bots come and go at their minders' whim. I don't see a good way to hold a Hahn tournament like that. For KGS, perhaps it could be run as a round-robin tournament and then the scores calculated offline with a spreadsheet program. That's not ideal either. - Dave Hillis
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
