terry mcintyre wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 18:07 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
When the playouts evaluate a critical semeai the wrong way, then no
supercomputer can help, even at long time control. Semeais require a
better algorithm, because no computing power can search them out with
a
tree,
Subject: Re: [computer-go] semeai
Has anyone tried implementing the ideas in Richard Hunter's Counting
Liberties
No, but I did make a test suite that included many of the interesting
positions (it also included many others of my own creation, both for
semeai and tactical search). (And, though
Darren Cook wrote:
do you have anything published?
I will do this commercially, i.e., publish when it will be ready and
complete. Since currently I am working on projects with a higher
priority (among them: joseki books), you need to be very patient, I am
afraid. [Unless (email me for
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 18:07 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
When the playouts evaluate a critical semeai the wrong way, then no
supercomputer can help, even at long time control. Semeais require a
better algorithm, because no computing power can search them out with
a
tree, and playouts
On Sep 5, 2008, at 7:49 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
19x19 differs from 9x9 in that it can be more readily partitioned;
in smaller boards, everything often closely interacts with
everything else.
I have also found this to be true. I tried various ideas relating to
finding the important
From: Bob Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 5, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
terry mcintyre wrote:
Has anyone tried implementing the ideas in Richard Hunter's Counting
Liberties
...
So although Hunter's study is a good fundament from which to start
working (in
Bob Hearn wrote:
But conceivably, it is not necessary to completely analyze semeai
statically, merely to produce some better heuristics so that the
playouts do a better job with semeai, correct?
In principle, right. I'd guess, things would be different during middle
game in an expert system
