What a timely thread!
I've reimplemented Łukasz Lew's libego in Java for the latest edition
of Orego. It includes something of an explanation of the data
structures. I believe the code itself is relatively clear.
The goodies are here:
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/go/
Enjoy!
Peter Drake
Thanks for the documentation. I have a few questions.
Looking at only the four neighbors to detect eye-like points seems like it
could leave many false eyes and allow captures of dangling chains. Is there
any mechanism to avoid this problem in the play of the bot?
I'll have to think more
On Jul 20, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Jason House wrote:
Thanks for the documentation. I have a few questions.
Looking at only the four neighbors to detect eye-like points seems
like it could leave many false eyes and allow captures of dangling
chains. Is there any mechanism to avoid this problem
On 7/20/07, Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 20, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Jason House wrote:
Thanks for the documentation. I have a few questions.
Looking at only the four neighbors to detect eye-like points seems like it
could leave many false eyes and allow captures of dangling chains.
On Jul 20, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Jason House wrote:
I thought he was using the disjoint set! I'll recheck. Well
written disjoint sets average out to nearly O(1) operations for
everything.
Yes -- O(log* n) to be precise, as mentioned in my book, shameless
plugData Structures and Algorithms
On 7/20/07, Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 20, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Jason House wrote:
I thought he was using the disjoint set! I'll recheck. Well
written disjoint sets average out to nearly O(1) operations for
everything.
Yes -- O(log* n) to be precise, as mentioned in my
Yes: log* is to log what log is to division. In other words, it's the
number of times you have to take a logarithm before you get down to
1. It's an extremely slowly-growing function.
It's conceivable that actual, empirical time is a better metric than
asymptotic time here, because we're
Peter Drake wrote:
On Jul 20, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Jason House wrote:
I thought he was using the disjoint set! I'll recheck. Well written
disjoint sets average out to nearly O(1) operations for everything.
Yes -- O(log* n) to be precise, ...
At the risk of being accused of serious
It looks like you're right -- but I did say O (rather than THETA), so
I'm also technically correct. :-)
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Jul 20, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Richard J. Lorentz wrote:
Peter Drake wrote:
On Jul 20, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Jason House wrote:
I thought he was
On Jul 20, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Jason House wrote:
On 7/20/07, Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 20, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Jason House wrote:
Thanks for the documentation. I have a few questions.
Looking at only the four neighbors to detect eye-like points seems
like it could leave
Jason House said:
Thanks for the documentation. I have a few questions.
Looking at only the four neighbors to detect eye-like points seems like
it could leave many false eyes and allow captures of dangling chains.
Is there any mechanism to avoid this problem in the play of the bot?
Eye
On 7/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason House said:
Thanks for the documentation. I have a few questions.
Looking at only the four neighbors to detect eye-like points seems like
it could leave many false eyes and allow captures of dangling chains.
Is there any
2007/7/20, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Looking at only the four neighbors to detect eye-like points seems like it
could leave many false eyes and allow captures of dangling chains. Is there
any mechanism to avoid this problem in the play of the bot?
It does also look at the diagonals; see
On Jul 20, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Andrés Domínguez wrote:
2007/7/20, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My program disallows playing in eyes (string of empty surrounded
by self)
unless a neighboring stone is in atari. That catches your special-
case, but
is not good for saving tails (strings
From: Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jul 20, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Andrés Domínguez wrote:
2007/7/20, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My program disallows playing in eyes (string of empty surrounded
by self)
unless a neighboring stone is in atari. That catches your special-
case, but
is not
On Jul 20, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Jason House wrote:
That's essentially the best that I came up with. Since bit board
operations on 19x19 are slow...
They are not necessarily slower than on smaller boards if you store
only non-zero portions of your bitmaps along with the start and end
16 matches
Mail list logo
