Heikki Levanto wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:55:21PM -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > >> If you're ahead and go for a bigger win, generally you're >> just risking more to gain more when you don't need more. >> >> there is *absolutely* no advantage from a game-theoretical >> point of view to try to win by more than 0.5 points. and in >> practice, it's generally not a great idea to try to win by any >> more than you absolutely have to. >> > > On the other hand, it is equally pointless to throw out points in order to > win by exactly 0.5 points. Especially if doing so increases your risk of > miscalculation etc. > > But MC programs really are "reasonable" in this sense. If there is the SLIGHTEST doubts in their silicon minds about their winning chances, they will not throw out points that could save the game.
There is this hidden assumption that MC programs are weakened because of not maximizing their territory (due to miscalculation) but the truth of the matter is that they are as pragmatic as you can get. WE are the ones irrational about it. We are the ones that feel we need to win a few more points "just in case" for good measure. An MC will win a few more points for good measure if it increases the probability of winning the game. We may see it miscalculate in this regard, but we can't fault the logic, only the miscalculation. Attempts to change the behavior to our more irrational point of view has always resulted in weakened play. This is part of the reason they are so good and probably a weakness of most if not all conventional GO programs. This is behavior that I can imagine would be very difficult to emulate in a conventional program, although there might be some attempts to do so. - Don > I bet most of us have played a game where we thought things were nicely under > control, only to have the opponent to play a surprising tesuji and gain a few > points in the endgame. If one was pointedly aiming at a 0.5 point victory, > such a tesuji could loose the game. If one was avoiding risks, but among > equal moves, choosing the one that maximizes the score, such risk would be > smaller. > > Of course this does not apply if one has confidence in having the game > perfectly well analysed, and will know how the game will end. Such finesse > is seldomly seen in kyu-level human players. And computer programs are not > quite that perfect either... > > > - H > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
