On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 09:00:54PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> I'm wondering if there's some framework for studying combinatoric
> aspects of games that are not only technically Go, but also actually
> resemble real Go games played by competent players?
>
> This research doesn't touch my heart very deeply because it seems
> that the astonishing numbers rise up only while exploiting "loopholes"
> in the technical rules formulation rather than their intention - passing
> while you still have moves that'd improve your score, putting
> whole-board groups in self-atari instead of capturing enemy groups
> in atari, etc.
>
> How would the results change if we approximated more realistic games
> by introducing just the same basic restriction that we use in Monte
> Carlo simulations - (i) filling your own true eye is invalid move,
> (ii) do not pass if a move is avilable.
Maybe a more formal way to express my concern: it should be easy to
come up with (of course ugly or expensive to verify) rule modifications
that would still allow >99.9% or more pro games to be valid, but
invalidate games proving these results in just a few moves. Can we
reach some results (re longest games, number of games, etc.) that
don't have this property?
--
Petr Baudis
If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers,
you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
