Some details at http://www.smart-games.com/knowpap.txt
Completely agree that connections and group strength estimates are key to strength, and are very difficult to get right. There are many tricky cases. For connections I used shapes and local tactics to determine connectivity and threat points, and handled some cases of adjacent connections with shared threats. For group strength I had about 20 classes with separate evaluators (two clear eyes, one big eyes, seki, semeai, run-or-live, one-eye-ko-threat-to-live, dead-if-move-first, etc, etc). Connection status was used to collect stones into groups. Groups strength was the core concept feeding into the full board evaluation, which tried to estimate the score. David > -----Original Message----- > From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On > Behalf Of Robert Jasiek > Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 12:34 AM > To: computer-go@computer-go.org > Subject: Re: [Computer-go] re comments on Life and Death > > On 04.09.2015 07:25, David Fotland wrote: > > group strength and connection information > > For this to work, group strength and connection status must be a) > assessed meaningfully and b) applied meaningfully within a broader > conceptual framework. What were your definitions for group strength > and connection status, for what purposes did you use them and how did > you apply them? > > -- > robert jasiek > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
