----- Original Message ----
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I think [Hsu] is betting on null move proving - but I'm real skeptical that
> it will be effective in Computer Go. It will indeed reduce the tree
> significantly, but this comes at a qualitative price that is not so bad
> in Chess but is a lot in Go.
Hsu also discusses the gains from caching life-and-death analysis of groups. I
suspect that
this will greatly reduce computational effort, once an efficient mechanism is
implemented.
Existing monte carlo programs cache information about playable/non playable
points; when
augmented with knowledge about life and death, search should more quickly home
in on crucial
lines of play.
I've been playing against Mogo the last few weeks. It has a very interesting
style of play, and it
often does quite well in tactical analysis, but sometimes it misses a key move
and fails to kill or
fails to preserve a large group - game over! A good life-and-death cache would
be a definite improvement.
Caching parts of trees works better in Go, since well-defined sections of the
board can sometimes be
partitioned from the rest of the board. Where such partitions leak, analysis is
likely to be critical;
for example, ladders and ladder breakers can extend across the board; invasions
often depend on
cutting points halfway across the board.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play
Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
