On 7/9/07, Erik van der Werf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/9/07, George Dahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is what I want. Thanks! So I might have to repeat this > a few hundred times to actually get a legal position? Are you aware that nearly all of these positions will be final positions? So I'll repeat my question: why do you need any of this? If you only need final positions it's probably much better to take them from real games, and if you actually need middle game positions you will have to use a different procedure... E. _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Won't the final positions be much more likely to be rejected since they are much more likely to be illegal? What is your claim about the distribution of the number of stones on the board with this scheme? I am hoping to use this method to help generate training data for a learning system that learns certain graph properties of the board that can also be computed deterministically from the board position. I know that might sound crazy, but it is working towards the eventual goal of creating feature extractors for Go positions. By learning to map Go positions as an array of stones to Go positions as graphs of strings (instead of just mapping them with a hand coded algorithm) I can take intermediate results in the learner's computation and use it as a feature for another learner. - George
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
