Hello, > Von: Olivier Teytaud <[email protected]>
>> Are you saying that the result in the paper is valid >> for games where scoring is order-dependent? > > > Unfortunately no; I just ask if there are classes of games **bigger** than > the one considered in the paper (order-independent) for which the result > is true. There are some ways to generalize the result of the paper. My current report on this will be made public soon after the Tilburg conference and Olympiad. Three generalizations: (i) Instead of "selection games", where each player can only place pieces of his color, "board filling games" can allow players to place pieces of both colors. See OdOku as an example: http://www.althofer.de/odoku.html (ii) The outcome has to depend only on the final position, but the set of feasible moves in each position may depend on the history of the game. An example is "Random-turn-Connect-4-*": It is played almost like Connect 4, but the turn-order is random, and at the end not the first "4 in row" is declared winner, but the player who has more "4 in row" patterns. (iii) Random-turn games with vetoes: When some player A wins the right to move in round t, before his move the opponent is allowed to forbid k of the free cells for this move. k may be any number that is smaller than the number of free cells. (Special case: k = number of free cells minus 1 ---- here the opponent makes the move, so to say.) I will let the mailing list know when my report is available. Ingo. -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
