Jonas Kahn wrote:
>> But correct ko threats playing has nothing to do with the playout part :
>> Since it is a strategic concept that involves global understanting, It is
>> handled by the UCT tree part.
>>
>
> Yes and no.
> Theoretically, that's the work of the UCT part. But, as Steve poi
How do the classic programs handle these sequences of ko threats that
must be precisely calculated to extreme depths?
- Don
steve uurtamo wrote:
> the issue with ko is the order in which the ko threats are played,
> which can only be successfully evaluated if the average playout
> finishes the k
> So I don't think
> sophisticated ko fights are resolved but I not strong enough to really
> quantify this.
It's very often the case that games between, say, two 7d players on KGS
will come down, in large part, to one or two or three ko fights and their
resolution. or even the threat of a ko
steve uurtamo wrote:
>> So I don't think
>> sophisticated ko fights are resolved but I not strong enough to really
>> quantify this.
>>
>
> It's very often the case that games between, say, two 7d players on KGS
> will come down, in large part, to one or two or three ko fights and their
>
Quoting steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
the thing that got me thinking about this is that i've never seen an MC
player really play out a ko fight. (or perhaps they are in their own cryptic
MC way that i can't see).
It takes two to dance a Tango! For example ko fights on 9x9 occur late
in
> the thing that got me thinking about this is that i've never seen an MC
> player really play out a ko fight. (or perhaps they are in their own cryptic
> MC way that i can't see).
Well this could easily be solved by *always* investigating
moves that take (or create) a ko.
This of course will fo
Stronger players often initiate sequences where the
life of a group depends on ko. I don't know if this
sort of thing happens in MC games, or if MC players
can deal with it effectively.
Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
“Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found sta
the general idea is that if the ko represents something of value X,
then making threats of value > X will force your opponent to answer,
and if he does not have as many threats of value > X as you do, then
you can eventually win the ko fight (by filling the ko) and gain X-(value of
sente) points, o
ah, sorry to respond to my own post, but of course if the
game is close, the threat doesn't even need to be of value > X,
if it is large enough to threaten to win the game, which can
happen in near-endgame situations.
the idea is that you start a ko for something that your opponent
is absolutely u
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
My feeling is that in lost positions, the only thing we are trying to
accomplish is to make the moves more cosmetically appealing (normal) and
at best improve the programs chances of winning against weak players.
After all, if the program is in bad shape,
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
This is true in GO too. I'm talking about the kinds of position where
go program start to play "aimlessly" and they only do that when the
result is like being down a queen in chess.Even being down a piece
in chess is playable if there is some compensati
Don Dailey wrote:
> How do the classic programs handle these sequences of ko threats that
> must be precisely calculated to extreme depths?
Usually with big difficulty and crude heuristics.
GNU Go determines that it should play a ko threat if the top move
turns out to be an illegal ko capture. I
Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
>> My feeling is that in lost positions, the only thing we are trying to
>> accomplish is to make the moves more cosmetically appealing (normal) and
>> at best improve the programs chances of winning against weak players.
>> After all
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
What you are trying to do is more in the category of opponent
modeling.You want to optimize for the case that you might
occasionally salvage a game against an opponent that is much weaker than
you but is beating you anyway.
No, absolutely not. The idea
Don Dailey wrote:
> If the opponent is beating you, he is probably relatively near your
> strength level. If your program KNOWS it is losing by 0.5 points, then
> it's reasonable to expect that your opponent does too, especially given
> the fact that he just outplayed you.
Don't forget handicap
Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
>> What you are trying to do is more in the category of opponent
>> modeling.You want to optimize for the case that you might
>> occasionally salvage a game against an opponent that is much weaker than
>> you but is beating you any
>> I think you are too much of "chess player" :-)
>> The fact that he is 0.5 point in the lead does not imply he is
>> (much) stronger.
>>
> I didn't say that. My point is that if he is beating you then he is
> not likely to be a lot weaker than you, and so he is probably just as
> aware
.. the undefeated winner of both divisions of yesterday's bot
tournament!
My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/36/index.html
Nick
--
Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.compu
If there is an illegal ko point on the board Many Faces includes ko threats
in move generation, and it will play a ko threat if it is the best move
found. So there is no special heuristic for ko other than generating more
possible moves.
David
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:15:36PM -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
> >What you are trying to do is more in the category of opponent
> >modeling.You want to optimize for the case that you might
> >occasionally salvage a game against an opponent that is much
20 matches
Mail list logo
