How are folks constructing their 3x3 pattern databases? How are they
being used?
If they are being used for playout biases, then I don't think
examining games is the right way to gather data. 90% of the moves
considered in a game of Go are unplayed; the tactical analysis that
is required to determine whether the moves actually played are sound.
This seems to be what the playouts represent.
3x3 is all about contact, which mostly is about fighting, tesuji,
joseki, semeais, life-and-death, connectivity, yose, and finalizing
boundaries. So it seems to me that 3x3 patterns should bias sente and
urgent moves (hane, extend, shoulder hit, attach, block, peep, push,
connect, turn, ko, ladders) and prevent local mistakes (filling eyes,
bad shape).
My own studies show that the empty 3x3 pattern is by far the most
used (and I suspect crucial), followed by hane, attach, block,
shoulder, and extend. The probability of each connection and blocking
pattern with many stones is low, because there are more possible
stone combinations that are essentially the same situation; the
likelyhood of any one situation showing up in a game is small.
Do folks have sparser pattern databases for empty space move
selection in playouts (one point jump, keima, two point jump, corner
enclosures, loose connections, wall extensions, etc)? Have you seen
other surprising biases in your generated 3x3 pattern databases?
Also, has anyone used the small diamond pattern instead of 3x3
patterns? This is gives you one-point jumps, kos, and more
sensitivity to edge effects.
Ian
Terms (for a move in the center by O, '?' means maybe add one O):
.
...
.. .. small diamond pattern
...
.
OX.
. . hane
???
.X.
? . attach
?..
XX?
O ? block
???
X..
. . shoulder
???
XO. XOX
. . . . extend
... ...
OX.
O . turn
?..
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
