Heikki Levanto wrote: >>> I don't make any tests for the first 20 moves. Thereafter, I >>> resign if >>> - I have no stones left on board >>> - I have less than half the number of stones my opponent has >>> I also pass if my opponent has no stones left on board.
Eduardo Sabbatella wrote: >> My cut logic was: dead stone difference > X. stop the >> game, wins the player with less dead stones. Dave Hillis wrote: > ..., for a sufficiently high threshold 'X', you should get > the correct value and still obtain a speedup worth having. Keep > increasing the threshold until it stops making mistakes. Alternatively, I wonder if there is some theoretical way to work it out? What is the most extreme example of being behind (either by X stones, or by some percentage, such as Heikki's 50% above) where the losing player can make a comeback and win the game (assume perfect play by both players from that point)? It sounds like a puzzle the people who come up with the go bestiary [1] or huge nakade [2] would enjoy. (Of course, the nice thing about playouts is we don't need to be perfect, just right most of the time; but, still, a theoretical basis is always nice if one is available.) Darren [1]: http://www.goban.demon.co.uk/go/bestiary/rule_challenge.html [2]: http://senseis.xmp.net/?BiggestKnownEyeSpaceForWhichThereIsANakade _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
