On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote: > >> In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is "good enough." >> > > If God is set to play any randomly chosen winning move, yes. > > > Since it is omnicient there is no point in talking about risk, or chances >> in any context. >> > > For a simple definition of God applied to a single game, yes. For an entity > in strength between God and Devil (who knows also the opponent's strategy in > hindsight), possibly no. For God without hindsight during a tournament, no. > For Devil in a single game or Devil with tournament hindsight, yes. > > > > In a lost game it would play a move at random. > > Why random? I don't understand the question. If all moves lose, how would YOU select? Did you get the point that I'm defining 2 separate strategies? One is to maximize the points on the board and the other is to not make any distinction whatsoever between moves except whether they win or lose the game. And I'm trying to make the point that maximizing the points on the board is a superior strategy because it is a super-set of the strategy to be only concerned with winning. Let's call this strategy A and strategy B. Strategy A is to maximize the points on the board and strategy B is to only distinguish winning moves. If you play strategy A, then a strategy B player would see those moves as a perfectly valid B strategy. But a strategy A player would frown on many of the moves a strategy B player would play. - Don > > > In maximize score mode it would choose the move that maximizes the total >> points taken on the board. It would be the perfect Hahn system player >> > > for instance. > > Wrong, since Hahn system has an upper score rewarding boundary. (The thing > that punishes me for having taken a "too great" risk when killing 70 stones > groups.) > > > > What I cannot decide is if it is really more > >> challenging - I just know it's more challenging to do it perfectly. >> > > More challenging for whom? For God, it is equally boring. > > > -- > robert jasiek > _______________________________________________ > 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/
