On 12/26/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, that's my plan.I'm going to use fixed handicap and 1 stone
compensation per handicap stone.
One question I have - is compensation normally given in the 1 stone
case?
I believe, no.
Also, in the case of NO handicap, what komi is nor
Yes, that's my plan.I'm going to use fixed handicap and 1 stone
compensation per handicap stone.
One question I have - is compensation normally given in the 1 stone
case?
Also, in the case of NO handicap, what komi is normally given in 19x19
Chinese? 6.5, 7.5 ???
- Don
On Tue,
On 12/26/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, the answer is that there is no gtp command available that defines
whether handicap stones are also compensated or by how much.
Just like there's no GTP command to define the ruleset. This
compensation is 0 in japanese rules, N in chinese
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 12:56 -0500, House, Jason J. wrote:
>
> >The question that I was asking is how do we inform the computer of the
> >handicap system? Is there a gtp command to inform the program of the
> >type of compensation since there is more than 1 possibility?
>
> There are two handic
>The question that I was asking is how do we inform the computer of the
>handicap system? Is there a gtp command to inform the program of the
>type of compensation since there is more than 1 possibility?
There are two handicap commands in GTP. One says, give me n handicap
stones. The other s
Le lundi 25 décembre 2006 15:35, Jacques Basaldúa a écrit :
> I have seen (many times) GnuGo not being able to
> win a H7 game to an opponent more than 10 kyu
> weaker. That happens because it had to invade
> unclear positions.
This is a feature of GNU Go :-)
GNU Go has very small invasion capacity
Le lundi 25 décembre 2006 00:46, Don Dailey a écrit :
>
> On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 13:54 -0800, David Fotland wrote:
> > There is no fixed relationship between ELO and handicap stones. Stronger
> > players have less variation in their play, so a handicap stone is worth more
> > ELO points for a stro
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
The best move may be a somewhat risky invasion -
of course one has to assume the partner will not
play perfectly, but everybody does that every time
anyway, right? Otherwise nobody would have any hope
to win and so nobody would play.
I agree. That's easy for humans to
