On 05.09.2015 08:00, David Fotland wrote:
Completely agree that connections and group strength estimates are key to
strength, and are very difficult to get right.
From the POV of humans, I have described connection meaningfully. The
remaining problem is the variety of application in principles and higher
concepts.
Whether group strength is needed at all depends very much on what you
mean by it.
For connections I used shapes and local tactics
Shapes are not needed, unless you want to use them to prune tactics.
However, if the tactics verification is slow for standard shapes, I'd
say this is its fault.
> Connection status was used to collect stones into groups.
Fine, provided this is not a static partition. Other considerations
(such as sacrifice) can make it necessary to alter groups dynamically.
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).
Was group strength an object of several parameters or was it a single
number derived from all those parameters? IMO, a single number cannot be
meaningful in general.
Groups strength was the core concept feeding into the full board evaluation,
which tried to estimate the score.
But what WAS your group strength...?:)
Score estimation of a given position should also depend on territory
counts, not only on group strength etc.
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
