Aja, On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Aja <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi René, > > In Erica, I do nothing special for atari information. I just > have maintained incrementally the liberties and liberty-points of every > string by some special data structure, so that I can access the > liberty-points very fast. > > For detecting feature 7, I just try the two liberty-points one by one to > see if that point can kill the string. If yes, then that point has feature > 7. If both the points can kill the string, then both of them have feature 7. > Feature 7 improves Erica's playing strength over 100 elo. It's really a very > BIG feature. > > Detecting feature 7 fast is a bit complicated. I do it by looking around > and analyzing the neighboring conditions of the other liberty-point. Maybe > do it by GnuGo's undo is faster: play the killer move and see if the string > has a way to escape. > > Aja > Thank you for your answer. Could you clarify what you mean by "killing" and "saving" in your paper? For instance, an extension that results in the extended string still in atari does not really "save" the string, as it can still be captured on the next oponent move. I understand that this is the difference between feature 2 and 3, but the wording in the paper identifies both situations with "saving" the newly ataried string. Similarly, for feature 7 it is possible to put an enemy string in atari, but leaving it the option to escape by connecting to an alive friendly string. This would be the case for the other (non-labeled) liberty in the example in your paper. Would you still consider this alternative move a "kill" or do you have a strict criterium for this (which would be more involved to check, perhaps even requiring a local search)? René
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
