On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 01:33:07PM -0400, Jason House wrote: > I don't think MC evaluation favors stable groups.
I guess I didn't really say what I meant here. MC evaluation sees weaknesses in groups that can be killed by random play, even if they are safe enough in the eyes of human players. For example a group with one long eye, 4 points long, is considered unconditionally alive, but a MC evaluator sees some chance in killing it, because the defending side plays pure random, and is as likely to shorten it to 3-space eye as to split it in two independent eyes. In real games this may not make much of a difference, but it is possible to construct positions that get evaluated wrong by MC. Perhaps a clever program might even take advantage of such... > It's really a function of the perceived chances of winning. When behind, > it'll play bold moves since it's the only real way to win. An MC bot that > is behind in endgame (even if by 1/2 point) plays so wildly, it frequently > loses all of its stones! When an MC bot is ahead, it'll play safe moves > that help guarantee a coast to victory (many times by 1/2 point). I think you are reading a bit too much intention into its play. When the game is already decided, it makes no difference where to play. So a pure MC program will end up playing totally random. If it is winning, it will happily let parts of a group die, as long as that does not change the result. If behind, it will not try to collect small points here and there, but just play where ever - often leading to death and destruction among its own groups. -H -- Heikki Levanto "In Murphy We Turst" heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
