On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Hideki Kato wrote:
The problems are not only ko fights but also include multiple semeais
and discarding plays.
In the case of there are multiple semeais on the board, the
simulations have to try to solve other semeai because the later can be
bigger than the former.
Why? I don't feel that accurate furikawari is needed in the playouts.
In the tree, yes. But in the MC part?
Moreover, when we enter the playouts, as David Fotland
mentions, all the semeai are "solved" in the sense that one player wins
it, with one-move margin. If we have automatic replies in all the
semeai, their status is unchanged throughout the playout.
Also, discarding stones is a very important
technique for strong Go players. Simmulations have to be able
to play other possibilities even if the opponent tried to solve a
semeai.
Do simulations need it? For me, that's really a tree-part requirement.
Playing in a lost semeai (save ko) is a bad move. Replying is still
overall in favour of the player who wins the semeai. If we compare to
the position two moves before, it is better for that player.
So a mistake in the playout would not be fully punished. The only danger
I can see in that is if symmetrically they are punished, that is if the
loser just ignores redundant moves by the winner in the semeai, as
illustrated by the failure of the conditioning strategy by Olivier
Teytaud.
After all, the aim of the MC part is not to play well; it is to give an
accurate evaluation of the situation.
Jonas
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
