> (effectively) zero. Therefore epsilon should be pretty tiny. It must be
> large enough that there is a chance of the frisbee being at least 50% over
> the line (i.e. epsilon > 0), but small enough that the chance of it going
> 70.7% over the line is vanishingly small (otherwise we would be allowing it
> to be displaced onto the diagonally adjacent positions).

I do not understand, I think that we do not need to ensure that the stone
cannot land diagonally by small epsilon, since ingo defined it s.t. it
cannot. Having small epsilon as you suggest makes any attempts at writing a
specialized frisbee-go code not really fruitful, since the displacement is
quite rare; so realistically, with small epsilon, no-one would probably
bother to do anything different than to run current programs unchanged.

I think that frisbee-go is much interesting for larger epsilons - e.g. 1/8,
1/6 - because it has nontrivial strategical/tactical implications. For
instance, seki are no longer sekis in this setting, since the loosing party
can always improve its expected outcome by trying to be lucky, and
therefore the winning side can do the same (of course sometimes this is
quite like starting the "10000 year ko"). Also when the game ends each dame
is essentially assigned "randomly", so under chinese rules score can
"change randomly". Moreover, larger epsilons change the game's dynamic s.t.
it is easier to live and harder to kill (hypothesis). Another thing is that
the MCTS might work much better with this setting (since random playouts
are much more true).

ingo: One note for rules (you should add) is that when players throw stone
to a location where the probability of landing on a valid location is
exactly zero (all 5 positions are stones or invalid) this counts as a pass
(otw, the loosing party might play the "non-voluntary pass" moves and make
the game infinite. (sorry if I overlooked someone mentioning this already)

Computer-go mailing list

Reply via email to