On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:45:56PM -0400, Jason House wrote: > Similarly, I've been in won games and gotten bitten by a tesuji by the > opponent. If I had been just a bit safer in my play, I could have had a > comfortable win. Similarly, reasonable MC bots solidify the core to win > rather than try to keep everything.
I would like to think so too, but that is not what I am seeing. In my own small experiments, I saw this kind of things often enough (bottom edge of the board): 3 O O O O O O O + + + + + + 2 O X X X X X O O O O O O O 1 O X + X + X + X X + X X O A B C D E F G H J K L M N Any "sane" human player would connect at G1 first, and K1 later. But to a MC player, those two are very close to equal, as long as the game seems to be decided by five points or more, or there is another similar situation on the board, and the program can be sure of getting one of them. > A lot of times, when these factors have a big impact on the MC play (as a > deviation from human-like play), humans consider it to be blunders by the MC > bot. They really aren't, it just feels unnatural. Some times that unnatural feeling is so strong, that I insist calling them blunders. BTW, the "obvious" choice to add the score to the rsult of the game has not been very good - then the program prefers lines of play that can lead to extreme victories, if the opponent plays in a bad way. That is not sound. I found out that scaling the score by so small a number that it can never overrule the raw number of victories or losses did the trick much better. Something under 1/boardsize*simulations, so that even if all simulations end in one part owning the whole board, the sum is not affected as much as a single win or loss... -H -- Heikki Levanto "In Murphy We Turst" heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
