Terry, I understand the reasoning behind this, your thought experiment did not add anything to my understanding. And I agree that if the program is strong enough and the handicap is high enough this is probably better than doing nothing at all.
However, I think there must be something that is more along the lines of treating the disease, not the symptoms. You might be able to put a band aid on the problem but you have not addressed the real issue in a systematic way. Besides, I have not yet seen anyone demonstrate that this works - it's always talked about but never implemented. It is made to sound so simple that you have to wonder where the implementation is and why the strong programs do not have it. - Don 2009/8/12 terry mcintyre <terrymcint...@yahoo.com> > Consider this thought experiment. > > You sit down at a board and your opponent has a 9-stone handicap. > > By any objective measure of the game, you should resign immediately. > > All your win-rate calculations report this hopeless state of affairs. > > Winrate gives you no objective basis to prefer one move or another. > > But, you think, what if I can make a small group? What if I try for a > lesser goal, such as "don't lose by more than 90 points?" > > Your opponent has a 9 stone handicap because he makes more mistakes than > you do. > > As the game progresses, those mistakes add up. You set your goal higher - > losing by only 50 points; losing by only 10 points. > > The changing goal permits you to discriminate in a field which would > otherwise look like a dark, desolate, win-less landscape. > > Terry McIntyre <terrymcint...@yahoo.com> > > “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” -- > Aesop > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com> > *To:* computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:05:36 PM > *Subject:* Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps > > Ok, I misunderstood his testing procedure. What he is doing is far more > scientific than what I thought he was doing. > > There has got to be something better than this. What we need is a way to > make the playouts more meaningful but not by artificially reducing our > actual objective which is to win. > > For the high handicap games, shouldn't the goal be to maximize the > score? Instead of adjusting komi why not just change the goal to win as > much of the board as possible? This would be far more honest and reliable > I would think and the program would not be forced to constantly waste effort > on constantly changing goals. > > > - Don > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brian Sheppard <sheppar...@aol.com>wrote: > >> >The small samples is probably the least of the problems with this. Do >> you >> >actually believe that you can play games against it and not be subjective >> in >> >your observations or how you play against it? >> >> These are computer-vs-computer games. Ingo is manually transferring moves >> between two computer opponents. >> >> The result does support Ingo's belief that dynamic Komi will help programs >> play high handicap games. Due to small sample size it isn't very strong >> evidence. But maybe it is enough to induce a programmer who actually plays >> in such games to create a more exhaustive test. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> computer-go mailing list >> computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
