It's not much more difficult to score Japanese (vs Chinese) with MCTS. You still have to implement seki in the playouts to score the end of a game. I agree with you that if I were starting from scratch I'd write an MCTS solver. Still hundreds of hours of work.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:computer-go- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Williams > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:16 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Computer-go] I need an off-the-shelf final position > live/dead evaluator > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Dave Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > At 10:39 PM 11/27/2010, David Fotland wrote: > >>Accurate scoring, even at the end of a game, is very difficult. You > have to > >>read accurately, and evaluate semeai and seki. > > > > Yup. I spent years developing the capability to score endgames > > at the point where humans typically leave them. Getting within > > a few points of correct 95% of the time is achievable. The other > > 5% you will either make whopper mistakes or never terminate. > > > > This is now pretty old, but I don't know of any more recent or better > > results. http://www.andromeda.com/people/ddyer/go/scoring-games.html > > No one here or at that link mentions whether they are talking about > Chinese scoring or Japanese scoring. It seems that the there would be > a significant difference. For insnance, if I wanted to score a > Chinese endgame starting with no code, I would probably write an MCTS > move generator that played the game to the bitter end and then score > it using simple area counting. But you can't do the same thing with > Japanese scoring. > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
