In message
<95be1d3b0911241346o3d26135eif8f184eb3f516...@mail.gmail.com>, Vlad
Dumitrescu <vladd...@gmail.com> writes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 22:15, Nick Wedd <n...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
But the "additive" property of Hahn scoring makes life easy for players. If
the board has become separated into regions that do not interact, players
can just work out what they think is the biggest local move on each part of
the board, and then make the biggest of these moves. This calculation is
correct for Hahn scoring, but not for normal scoring, or indeed any other
way of scoring. (I am not talking about tedomari effects here, which are
rare and small; I am talking about the handling of uncertainty.)
In fact, I believe that of all the ways of converting from the board score
to the object of the game, Hahn scoring is the uniquely easiest and least
interesting.
I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't get it. There must be some subtle
detail that escapes me...
Please try to explain why the "hahn calculation" isn't working in a
normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about strong human
players.
In my view, we have
hahn: object of the game = max board score
normal: object of the game = board score > komi
Are you talking about omniscient players? If not, I have already
answered:
> 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,
> [or Hahn scoring] I will prefer B.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
