Some replies on my original mail indicate that I did not make clear the motivation of my proposal.
You have to distinguish several scenarii when maximizing the playing strength/value of your Go program: (a) auto-play (or play between different versions of your prog) (a') play against other computer programs (b) play against humans (c) program as tool for human analysis of Go positions or of whole games (d) acceptance by humans I agree, that for (a) and (a') other scoring rules will likely not give better results. But concerning (b) I am not so sure. Here, data from KGS may shed some light. Did some programmers try to test ohter scoring systems there? Concerning (c), I can tell from my experiences in the computer chess world. In the late 1990's strong Shredder and Junior were dominating the computer chess tournaments. However, as analysis tools they were not the best. Concerning (d), in the German go scene several people who tested Leela, were not at all convinced by the playing style, even not on 9x9. And this was not based on performance, but mainly on the "laziness". My claim was (and still is): Other scoring schemes (inside the programs) may prove beneficial with respect to (b), (c), (d). Ingo. *************************************************** Denis Fidaali asked: > how can i do so that my response to this mailing-list will be correctly > indented ? > (for example i would have liked to set this one as a response to my previous > post). Not an answer, but I am suffering the same problem .... -- GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen! Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
