2009/8/12 Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com>: > > I disagree about this being what humans do. They do not set a fake komi > and then try to win only by that much.
I didn't say that humans do that. I said they consider their chance 50-50. For an MC program to consider its chances to be 50-50 you'd have to up the komi. There's a difference. > > I think their model is somewhat incremental, trying to win a bit at a time > but I'm quite convinced that they won't just let the opponent consolidate > like MCTS does. With dynamic komi the program will STILL just try to > consolidate and not care about what his opponent does. But strong players > will know that letting your opponent consolidate is not going to work. So > they will keep things complicated and challenge their weaker opponents > everywhere that is important. > It's difficult to make hard claims about this. I don't agree at all that the stronger player constantly needs to keep things complicated. Personally I tend to play solidly when giving a handicap. Because most damage is self-inflicted. You can either make a guess what the weaker player doesn't know, or you can give him the initiative and he'll show you. I prefer the latter approach. When done properly, I don't see how an MCTS program would consolidate all the time. Doing so would keep the position stable while the komi declines. As soon as he gets behind the komi degradation curve play will automatically get more dynamic in an attempt to catch up. The problem is: we're speculating. The proof is in the pudding. Mark _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
