On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 05:29:57PM +0100, Urban Hafner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think we mean the same. So when black plays at a1 first we count it for
> >> black everywhere but never for white. Correct?
> >>
> > The question is, if both black and white play a1 - because there were
> > captures in the middle - whether both of them will update a1 in some of
> > their nodes. I believe so.
>
>
> I see. Yes, that is also an option. I’ve only checked Michi and it only
> counts the first one. It’s possible that this is just out of performance
> considerations, but it could also be argued that so many captures happen in
> the playouts that the information at the end of the game (where captures
> are more likely to happen) isn’t worth recording.
I agree.
It may be worthwhile to think a bit abstractly about what's our goal
with the AMAF statistics - we want to notice plays that are important
for winning and therefore should be prioritized to play right away.
Should we prioritize a move that we otherwise get around to only under
the stones?
Also, if you step through a bunch of MC simulations, you may notice that
often a large+strong group gets captured because of something silly and
then totally unrelated moves appear in the freed up space. Playing
under the stones is thus a strong indicator that we are in the "nonsense
endgame" phase of MC.
--
Petr Baudis
If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers,
you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
