At the exhibition game against Tei Meiko 9 Dan after the UEC cup, I resigned for Fuego when the position was hopeless. However, Fuego's evaluation at that time was still positive.
http://jsb.cs.uec.ac.jp/~igo/eng/result_ex/Fuego-MeikouTei.sgf For example, at move 154 its value was 0.75 even though White clearly has more territory. The main reason for the misevaluations is that Fuego cannot reliably resolve some simple tactical situations. For example, the top right corner is a trivial semeai won by White. However the Fuego territory score for these points is only about -0.1, which is a bias of 0.9 per point. With 8 stones at stake the evaluation is already 7.2 points off just from this region. Another problem is the bottom left corner. This group is clearly alive but the evaluation is about -0.4. With about 16 points affected, the bias is 16* 0.6 = 9.6. Combined with some other smaller mistakes, Fuego underestimates its opponent's territory by 20 points. Similar issues happened in the 13x13 games in Barcelona, and I wrote about it in my technical report https://www.cs.ualberta.ca/research/theses-publications/technical-reports/2010/TR10-08 How do other programs approach this issue? Is the problem as bad as in Fuego? Martin _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
