>
>
> You won't find that in computer vs computer games, because "tricking" the
> strong programs requires some go skill and it only works if you wait long
> enough before you "solve" the position. But if you search KGS (LeelaBot,
> CrazyStone, CzechBot) for even games where the bot lost against a kyu
> players you will find many. All go more or less like that:
>
> A 4-6 kyu human is behind by 10-15 points in the midgame (at that
> stage the
> probability of winning is correlated with territory, so the MC bot is
> building fine.) He creates a 12-16 point worth nakade trick in a corner
> and does not solve it.The bot is happy, it thinks a bulk five is alive or
> something like that. Perhaps the human sacrificed another 15 points
> somewhere to create the trick so he should be dead lost. But, he only
> has to play on, reduce, etc. As the endgame approaches, the MC bot
> allows the reduction only until the territorial balance would change the
> winner. The player is happy, he turned a 25 points loss into a 1.5 point
> loss (assumed by the program) and has a 12 point surprise.
> At the end, when the whole board is decided, the player kills
> the bot's group and the bot turns a sure win into a sure loss and
> resigns.
>
> Because the trick can only be played by similar strength players (much
> weaker players can't build something like that, much stronger don't
> need it)
> it affects the rating of the bots. I guess CrazyStone could be near
> KGS 1dan
> with that solved. It is 2k now. But, of course, the solution may not
> come at
> the price of making the program weaker. That is the difficult part.

I want to make sure I understand the nakade problem,   please correct me
if I am wrong:

My understanding of this is that many program do not allow self-atari
moves in the play-outs because in general the overwhelming majority are
stupid moves.   Is that what is causing the nakade problem?     And if
you start including self-atari you weaken the program in general?

And can I assume the tree portion is also inhibited from seeing this due
to a combination of factors such as heuristics to delay exploring "ugly"
moves as well as  the weakness of the play-outs in this regard (which
would cause the tree to not be inclined to get close enough to the issue
to understand it properly?)

- Don



>
>
> Jacques.
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Reply via email to