On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Mark Boon <tesujisoftw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. If the handicap is fair, their chance is about 50/50. However, rigging komi to give the same chance is NOT what humans do. The only thing you said that I consider correct is that humans estimate their chances to be about 50/50. One thing humans do is to set short term goals and I think dynamic komi is an attempt to do that - but it's a misguided attempt because you are setting the WRONG short term goal. The human will have a much more specific goal that is going to be compatible with his hope of winning the game. For instance I am sure he will not sit merrily by and watch his opponent consolidate a won game just so that he can have a "respectable" but losing score. Dynamic komi of course does not address that at all. > > > > 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. Agreed. - Don > > > Mark > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
