Re: [Computer-go] Alphago and solving Go

And what is the connection between the number of "positions" and the number of games or even solving games? In the game trees we do not care about positions, but about situations. For the game tree it indeed matters whos turn it is, which moves are legal, and if super-ko rules are used which

Re: [Computer-go] Alphago and solving Go

It's trivial, dude. On Aug 9, 2017 8:35 AM, "Marc Landgraf" wrote: > Under which ruleset is the 3^(n*n) a trivial upper bound for the number of > legal positions? > I'm sure there are rulesets, under which this bonds holds, but I doubt > that this can be considered

Re: [Computer-go] Alphago and solving Go

> And what is the connection between the number of "positions" and the number > of games The number of games is at most 361^#positions. > or even solving games? In the game trees we do not care about > positions, but about situations. We care about lots of things, including intersections,

Re: [Computer-go] Alphago and solving Go

> Under which ruleset is the 3^(n*n) a trivial upper bound for the number of > legal positions? Under all rulesets. > Unless we talk about simply the visual aspect Yes, we do. > but then this has > absolutely nothing to do with the discussion abour solving games. If you want the notion of

Re: [Computer-go] Alphago and solving Go

Under which ruleset is the 3^(n*n) a trivial upper bound for the number of legal positions? I'm sure there are rulesets, under which this bonds holds, but I doubt that this can be considered trivial. Under the in computer go more common rulesets this upper bound is simply wrong. Unless we talk

Re: [Computer-go] Alphago and solving Go

I don't mind your terminology, in fact I feel like it is a good way to distinguish the two different things. It is just that I considiered one thing wrongly used instead of the other for the discussion here. But if we go with the link you are suggesting here: Shouldnt that number at most be

Re: [Computer-go] Alphago and solving Go

361! seems like an attempt to estimate an upper bound on the number of games where nothing is captured. On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Gunnar Farnebäck wrote: > Except 361! (~10^768) couldn't plausibly be an estimate of the number of > legal positions, since ignoring the

Re: [Computer-go] Alphago and solving Go

Except 361! (~10^768) couldn't plausibly be an estimate of the number of legal positions, since ignoring the rules in that case gives the trivial upper bound of 3^361 (~10^172). More likely it is a very, very bad attempt at estimating the number of games. Even with the extremely unsharp bound