2009/8/12 terry mcintyre <terrymcint...@yahoo.com> > Most experiments are done on even games; this dynamic algorithm applies > particularly to handicap games.In that context, it is not an ungainly > kludge, but actually reflects the assessment of evenly matched pro players - > they look at the board, and see a victory of n times 10 handicap stones ( or > something roughly comparable ) for black. > > This matters because today's programs are not even close to playing at the > pro level; to win respect, they'll have to master handicap games - and to do > that, they'll need to do two things. First, they'll need to model the > expectation that black with a handicap _should_ win big. Second, they'll > need to behave gracefully as that initial advantage is whittled down. >
I disagree. I think strong players have a sense of what kind of mistakes to expect, and try to provoke those mistakes. Dynamic komi does not model that. It also does the opposite of making the program play provocatively, which I believe is necessary to beat a weaker player with a large handicap against you. Instead of making it fight, it encourages the program to be content with less. How does this model strong handicap players? - Don > > > Existing programs don't do either of those two things well. They're tuned > toward even-game strategy. > > Terry McIntyre <terrymcint...@yahoo.com> > > “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” -- > Aesop > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
