> > I am not sure what you mean by "the result of a game". > > If a game has stopped because two weak players have passed in turn, then > "the result" may, depending on the rules used, be undefined, or difficult or > inappropriate to calculate. If a game has stopped because two expert > players have passed in turn, then the result is (almost certainly) defined, > but it may be difficult for medium-strength players, and impossible for all > existing programs, to know what it is. > > I suggest that instead of getting your neural players to play Go, you get > them to play a very slightly different game, in which, when both players > pass in turn, all stones remaining on the board are deemed alive. It is not > difficult to write a scoring algorithm for this game. > > Nick
Thank you for your remarks. I will start using this method (actually, I think this is the method implemented in the opengo library I am using), since it seems perfectly relevant for my weak programs. I will eventually try to use GNUGo as a referee like Ben suggested if I ever need more accurate results. By the way, I apologize for the double messages. Ernest. > <[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
