Hi Marc, thanks for the infos. I try to give answers directly for each point. (The problem is I have a stubborn cough, for weeks already. Each day getting my work done is a challenge...)
> Goncalos were on 7th of April. Just copying them here: > --- > On frisbee Go itself I used the following definition: > 1. An intended play must be legal -- no playing on top of a stone hoping > it 'falls' to the neighbor positions. Accepted. > 2. Unintentional plays that are illegal are nulled and don't imply a > desire to end the match. Accepted. > 3. The distribution of unintentional plays around the 4 neighbors is > constant even at the border where there are never 4 neighbors; "You hit > the target with prob. p, and its 4 neighbours with probability > (1-p)/4.". The residual probability at the border is not reused for > on-board plays. Accepted. > 4. Probability parameter p cannot be changed midgame, for simplification. Of course. For the tournament I see only two natural choices for (1-p)/4, namely = 1/6 or 1/8. For both cases I have appropriate dice for manual rollouts. Likely the number of participants will notz be too large. So we might play double round robin with 1/6 in one of the runs, and 1/8 in the other. > 5. Technically, using the GTP, I assumed genmove_reg+play commands are > used, instead of genmove+undo+play or something frisbee specific. This > is probably stating the obvious. No GTP please, but manual operation of the bots. > Also when trying to theoretically solve even very simple L+D > situations this game feels quite tricky for me and very different from > Go. Of course. The specialties of Frisbee Go are most obvious in the very final moves. > Btw, for the theoretical question posed earlier (regarding the 3 > point eye) I assumed the p to be the chance of deviation. Right. That is the more natural thing to view things. Cheers, Ingo. _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
