Don Dailey wrote:
>Another question is how many illegal board configurations are there ...
>by assigning each point on the board a random state of (white,black,empty)
That does not represent real game positions. All positions have about
7x7x2/3 = 33 stones. (A normal distribution assuming the st
What you are suggesting is quite similar to what human players do.
The problem is that Don is trying to bias for speed with a hash-table
like evaluation to quickly identify the board. I think that if there
were
a fast dependable algorithm for the identification of "irrelevant"
stones
prior to
On 14, Oct 2006, at 11:57 PM, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Hi,
On 10/14/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 20:33 +, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> I think there are legal positions that
> can be reached only by passing - these could also be skipped in a
> database, I think
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 12:40 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> >Another question is how many illegal board configurations are
> there ...
> >by assigning each point on the board a random state of
> (white,black,empty)
>
> That does not represent real game positions. All positions have about
> 7x7x
There may be some confusion about what the assumptions and goals are for
the CGOS pairing objectives. I am hearing conflicting statements. So I
for one am unsure ;-)
Don Daily wrote (from Re: [computer-go] A new pairing system idea for
CGOS, 10/8/2006):
>> Your basic idea is sound - but it'
