On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Alain Baeckeroot < [email protected]> wrote:
> Le 23/11/2009 à 15:04, Don Dailey a écrit : > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Robert Jasiek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Don Dailey wrote: > > > > this simplification of the rules > > > > > > Simplification? It does not even simplify strategy. > > > > > > > I am asserting that a properly modified bot is going to better at this > > variant of the game. It's way easier to play go like a beginner who is > > focused more on not losing points on the board. > > > > If you remember, we started programming MC that way and it was harder to > > beat them by high scores but it was easier to beat them. > > Yes, but the aim was to win, not to win by a lot, this is NOT the same > rules. > I don't think we can guess if the bot are weaker or stronger with this new > rules (i guess it's about the same :-) ) > Of course you can guess, and that's what I am doing. I am estimating that this is a simpler game but I could be wrong. I think simpler games favor computers. I think it's simpler because I am a weak player and I think more in terms of total points rather than winning games (in my beginners mind there is no difference even though objectively I know better, but it's too much for me to process.) Even strong players do this as a shortcut to make it "easier" to think about their next move, but they are more aware of concepts like, "I MUST win this chunk of the board or I will lose the game." So it seems pretty evident to me that this is a simpler concept to grasp and play by and thus one that computers would do better at relative to good human players who are much better at risk assessment than computers. I won't go so far as to say that this eliminates the element of risk from the game, but it seems obvious to me that it is an easier way to think about the game. > > > > Then it was > > discovered that scoring wins and losses made a huge difference in their > > ability to win. This is pretty much a proof that playing for score is > a > > significantly DIFFERENT strategy. It almost certainly has to be a > > simpler strategy because it's more like how weaker players play the game. > > > http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/HahnSystem says it forces players to fight > more. > and improves reading skill. > All that really means is that the game is longer. You have to fight for points even if 350 points have already been decided and there are 11 left to fight over. I think it's a stretch to claim this means it takes a lot more skill to play with the Hahn system. - Don > > For sure it would be fun for people to watch a kgs hahn tournament, with > bots fighting hard and crushing the weaker one. > (with R.Jasiek rule : 1 point on board gives 1 point for tournament) > > btw, gnugo would be better at this, as it tries to maximise score. > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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/
