On 16-jan-08, at 11:54, Christoph Birk wrote:
I think this is very wrong, like allowing suicide.
If you allow (or forbid) moves that cannot really (should) be
played in the
random games you are not sampling the true status of the board.
I think most people take a much too dogmatic point of view on this
issue either way. Maybe by allowing suicide you don't sample the true
status, but does it statistically matter? If you hold this stand-
point then you should also detect board repetitions. I bet most if
not all only check for ko because checking for repetition is too time-
consuming.
My question would be, would choosing either way matter? If it matters
you do something about it. If it doesn't matter you don't care. For
me multiple suicide and board repetition fall in the category where
they don't matter. The cases where it makes a difference are so few
that you can play for a lifetime and encounter it maybe once or
twice. Maybe with MC playouts it would make the game shorter when
multiple-suicide is not allowed. If that's the case then that's a
reason to do something about it. But even with MC I doubt you save
more than a few moves on average.
Not allowing to play on a point that was at some point illegal for
one side does matter a lot. Groups with one (false) eye would be
alive. So so I'm sure people won't use that.
Mark
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
