Kahn Jonas <[email protected]> > ... and that's not interesting: We want to focus on the multimodularity. > > So just count the number and depths of peaks.
Jonas is right. Identifying peaks and their "volumes" is indeed rather easy. For the long run I see a plan with two stages. Stage (ii) should be interesting particularly as along as pro players still give handicap stones to bots. (i) Given a large board (typically 19x19) and for some middle game position a Monte-Carlo histogram with two or more peaks. Identify the corresponding local fight(s) which is/are responsible for the peak(s). This task is not trivial, but within reach. (ii) When still ahead in such a position, the bot should "resolve" a local fight for the prize of a "few" points. An example for this can be seen in ds' and Petr Baudis' comments on a game between Catalin Taranu (5p) (=egc2012pro) and Crazy Stone on August 02, 2012. http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=crazystone&year=2012&month=8 The upper left corner was no completely cleared, and CrazyStone played with the resulting peaks for more than one hundred moves. In the comments Petr tried to defend CrazyStone, but ds claimed that early action by the bot would have avoided the mis-evaluations. ****************************************************** One of my hopes (in contrast to pessimists like Stefan Kaitschick) is: When there are "MANY" unresolved local fights things might become less complicated again for MC bots. (Side remark: on small boards positions with several peaks are not seldom.) Ingo. _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
