On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:42 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote: > To satisfy my standards of proof, games would have to be post-analyzed to > determine whether either side could have made better moves. Duplicate games > would be thrown out; games with inferior play would be tossed. We might not > have the resources to completely solve the game, but we could improve the > quality of the estimate. At this date, computer-vs-computer matches still > tend to have gross errors in the evaluation of seki, nakade, etc. Programs > think they are ahead when the real result is the opposite.
Yes, as I mentioned this is not a proof. Neither is post-analysis, but it would at least add some confidence. There is always the possibility that some nakade glitch or something makes it return the wrong results. Also, the possibility that some difficult to find key move masks the true result. It's also possible that a strong go program is more likely to return a false result due to having more idiosyncrasies. On 5x5 and 7x7 it DID return what is believed by humans to be the correct komi, but that doesn't mean it will at any other board size. I like the idea of playing thousands of games and building a tree for later inspection. If anything looks really wrong, it can be further analyzed. - Don > Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > "Go is very hard. The more I learn about it, the less I know." -Jie Li, 9 dan > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
