You could express the intended move as a pair of real numbers. A random offset is then added, following some probability distribution (Gaussian, or uniform in a disk of a certain radius, or ...), and then the result is rounded to the nearest point of integer coordinates. What possibilities does this not cover?
I like the idea of using Gaussian noise and handicapping games by assigning a larger variance to the stronger player. :) Álvaro. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:27 AM, John Tromp <john.tr...@gmail.com> wrote: > dear Nick, > > > There's an assumption implicitly made here, which does not accord with my > > experience of frisbee Go: that the player will always aim at an > > intersection. > > > > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care > > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with > probability > > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able > to do > > better by aiming midway between them. > > But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points. > Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there. > > There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go, > so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence... > > regards, > -John > _______________________________________________ > 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
