"I agree that group strength can't be a single number. That's why I
classify groups instead. Each classification is treated differently when
estimating territory, when generating candidate moves, etc. The territory
counts depend on the strength of the nearby groups."
this touches on an issue wh
test
Folkert van Heusden
--
MultiTail is een flexibele tool voor het volgen van logfiles en
uitvoer van commando's. Filteren, van kleur voorzien, mergen,
'diff-view', etc. http://www.vanheusden.com/multitail/
--
Phone: +31-6-41
When I speak of true selectively I actually mean programs 3 or 4 by
your definition, it's just a matter of semantics. I mean a program
that doesn't consider every move and once it's made the decision not
to consider a move will never revisit or modify that decision.
Although a "true selective" p
I would add 4. The program tries to identify good moves, and only tries
moves that it thinks might be good. If it is goal-directed, the good moves
are good for a reason, and if the reason is not satisfied, they are
discarded.
This is the way Many Faces works. It's very similar to 3, but it's
ubject: Re: [computer-go] when to stop searching
>
>
> no problem. :)
>
> just run the following algorithm:
>
> i) get MC "estimates" for each move.
> ii) partition the list into "good looking moves"
> and "bad looking moves" ba
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 05:28:29PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The ladder is an example that a special property causes the
> meaningful playing space to clapse into an sub-space. The question is
> how to identify such special properties and their associated
> sub-space.
Yes, the ladde
-go.org
Sent: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: [computer-go] when to stop searching
But to pick the best move, it's "only" necessary to recognize the
weaknesses in all the other moves. In many cases these weaknesses can
be recognized using move sequences that are far less than per
or larger.
Daniel Liu
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: [computer-go] when to stop searching
On 3/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But to pick the best move, it's "only&q
no problem. :)
just run the following algorithm:
i) get MC "estimates" for each move.
ii) partition the list into "good looking moves"
and "bad looking moves" based upon the
estimated probability of earning a win.
iii) compare the top move pairwise with the rest
of the "good lo
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 12:03 -0700, Brian Slesinsky wrote:
> With UTC, if I understand correctly, it would eventually try every
> possible sequence, but of course not within the time limit, so it
> isn't clear that it starts with an "imperfect subset of moves" that is
> separate from the other facto
On 3/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem in Computer Go is the search of the best move that can be found.
First, Since a computer prgram, or a player cannot consider every possible
moves, they usually has a move selecting function which select a sub set of
the all po
I had been including pass as one of the possible random moves, just
as likely as any other. I reasoned that, if there is a seki on the
board, passing might be the best move.
On further thought, it's almost certainly more important to avoid
leaving dead stones on the board. I changed this an
Well at least we can be sure that for any two person game, if a position occurs 3 times, at least 2 will have the same player to move ;-)Erik On 11/8/06,
John Tromp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The difference between PSK and SSK also comes up in chess.Witness these events taking place yesterday in t
The difference between PSK and SSK also comes up in chess.
Witness these events taking place yesterday in the Tal Memorial
chess festival in Moscow:
Morozevich-Carlsen was interesting for a technical reason. White had
some advantages but Carlsen locked up the position in sound defence.
There was
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:26:34PM +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> > BTW: In my over 50K master games collection I have only seen 2 games
> > with a triple KO. (The whole collection was played out by GnuGo 3.6
> > level 10 to verify/compute the fina
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:26:34PM +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> BTW: In my over 50K master games collection I have only seen 2 games
> with a triple KO. (The whole collection was played out by GnuGo 3.6
> level 10 to verify/compute the final score.) And I have never seen
> other superkos than
Don Dailey wrote:
The only reason to have a KO rule is to prevent by force, long cycles.
So I don't see a point in imposing more restrictive conditions than
necessary.
Talking about superko, I agree at 100%. John Tromp's arguments are
sound and probably the best from the _ruleset's_ point of
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 12:23:14PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> But now we have one itty bitty practical inconvenience. How to you
> conduct tournaments and matches where games can last forever?
>
> Since GO currently has arbitrary KO rules for practical convenience, why
> not introduce another ar
Cool idea Dons! I think taking away the ordinary ko rule in this way would
have too strong a distorting effect on the game. The player who was behind
could win all ko fights, and eventually there would be a ko fight that
neither could afford to lose. Too many games would be drawn. It would end
Quoting alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
It seems this kind of strategic consideration/evaluation is not (yet)
part of computer go (and as kyu player, its hardly getting into my game ;)
I think the top programs on CGOS handle ko fights very well on 9x9,
relative to
their strength in gen
Le lundi 23 octobre 2006 22:12, Don Dailey a écrit :
> I'm just looking for a way out of the KO ugliness as a mental exercise.
arg , ko is not ugly :)
A famous go proverb, you can find in the excellent book "go proverbs":
"If you are afraid of ko, don't play go."
And a strong pro (sorry i fo
I'm just looking for a way out of the KO ugliness as a mental exercise.
There appears to be no way unless the game is changed significantly.
You could just allow simple KO under the same circumstances of move or
time limited games.
- Don
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 22:00 +0200, John Tromp wrote:
> O
On 10/23/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not very good at GO, but I would assume that it would change the
game some. But it would be a change that was adjusted to. Knowing how
to avoid these situations would be part of a good players strategy.
"Some" is an understatement. It w
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 16:01 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
>
> On 23-okt-06, at 14:23, Don Dailey wrote:
>
> > Then all the nonsense goes away. It then comes down to each player
> >
> > having his fate in his own hands.If you want to win, you will
> > avoid
> >
> > cycles,
> >
>
> That's a rat
On 23-okt-06, at 14:23, Don Dailey wrote:Then all the nonsense goes away. It then comes down to each player having his fate in his own hands. If you want to win, you will avoid cycles, That's a rather bizarre proposal. Ko is so common in Go. It would mean that he who is ahead would have to con
Let me address some of your points directly:
> ...
>
> In Go, the forbidden ko point is another piece of information you could
> add, being similar to en-passent capture possibilities in that it is only
> about what happened in the last move.
>
> You may well say "2 identical configuration - on
On 10/23/06, John Tromp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Who is to say that SSK doesn't lead to similarly bizarre situations?I'm not sure what you would consider bizarre, but the example I posted works the same for SSK.The problem is superko. For all common variants there are (rare) situations where an e
One solution to all of this is to HAVE NO KO RULE!
Then all the nonsense goes away. It then comes down to each player
having his fate in his own hands.If you want to win, you will avoid
cycles, but you are not arbitrarily told what a cycle is or what version
of some cycle rule is consider
Does anyone have an example where "pass" is the best move, and not part
of the two passes to end the game? I'm trying to >determine if passes
should ever be considered in a search for the best move, and if so, how
to exclude them until it is really >necessary.
Which round is first pass move mad
On 10/23/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't believe in positional superko. I know that 99.9% of the time it
makes little or no difference, but I don't see how it can be correct.
2 identical configuration - each with different color to move are simply
NOT the same position.
The
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don
Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group should be
sacrificed - I wondered if it was also due to PSK issues.
I want to clarify something I said about PSK. I don't think the rule is
"wrong" in any sense - aft
When someone mentioned a position where a pass-alive group should be
sacrificed - I wondered if it was also due to PSK issues.
I want to clarify something I said about PSK. I don't think the rule is
"wrong" in any sense - after all you can make up any rules you want as
long as they are internally
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 11:25 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
> On 10/23/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... A region of 7 inside a benson
> > group cannot possibly support enemy life. So moves inside
> them
> > by either color do not improve the position.
>
> Normally
On 10/23/06, Tom Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> At 01:54 23/10/2006, you wrote:> > >There was a posting on this list with an example of a (contrived?)
> >situation where sacrificing a pass-alive group is appropriate, in order to> >win a ko that is more valuable. Is even #1 "100% admissible"?>
On 10/23/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> ... A region of 7 inside a benson> group cannot possibly support enemy life. So moves inside them> by either color do not improve the position.
Normally (under traditional Go rules) you would be right that a region of 7 surrounded
At 01:54 23/10/2006, you wrote:
There was a posting on this list with an example of a (contrived?)
situation where sacrificing a pass-alive group is appropriate, in order to
win a ko that is more valuable. Is even #1 "100% admissible"?
Weston
I must have missed this, and find it surprisin
Section 6 in http://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/papers/mono.pdf
is about chains with a single eye who's status is ko (the original
position does not have a ko-forbidden field) and where
passing is one of the best moves of both sides.
There also is a position at the end of the paper where the first tw
There was a posting on this list with an example of a (contrived?) situation where sacrificing a pass-alive group is appropriate, in order to win a ko that is more valuable. Is even #1 "100% admissible"?
WestonOn 10/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm in a similar situation, I'm tryi
age-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:08 PM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] When is Pass the best move?
>
>
> I'm in a similar situation, I'm trying to identify cl
Does anyone have an example where "pass" is the best move, and not part of the two passes to end the game? I'm trying to determine if passes should ever be considered in a search for the best move, and if so, how to exclude them until it is really necessary.
Thanks,
Phil
_
I'm in a similar situation, I'm trying to identify classes of moves
that I can eliminate in an admissible way - which means the move I am
throwing out is either not the best move, or there are other equally
good moves.
I know that pass moves can be the best move in seki situations - and
it's non-
41 matches
Mail list logo
